Top
Best
New

Posted by awnird 15 hours ago

As AI eats the web, the internet’s collective memory is disappearing(thewalrus.ca)
438 points | 520 commentspage 5
khalic 3 hours ago|
It seems like a lot of techies should have chosen acting as a specialty, because I’ve never seen that much melodrama in one industry. FFS people, adapt, stop complaining
zkmon 5 hours ago||
It happens when the deterministic precision was given away in return for the probabilistic guesses. It was one extreme until now (deterministic code), and we are swinging to the other extreme (probabilistic slop), but what the world wants could be somewhere in between. Some information does not need too much precision, while others do need precision.
germandiago 5 hours ago|
That is a nice project -- classifying it based on reliability: human-made, sources, etc. + score.

Maybe a job for an AI to do? :D

monster_truck 4 hours ago||
I just don't care man. Did these people just log on yesterday or something? The MUDs and MMOs I grew up with disappeared. The IRC networks, and especially forums I learned so much from are gone (these were largely killed for something even worse than AI: commercial blogs!). Effectively every social network I've ever cared about has been ruined, failed, or sold. Even games have become bottom line chasing, live service slop that you never truly own.

If you want it so bad stop crying and make it, that's what I've been doing. It works a lot better than whatever this post and many of these comments are. There are dozens of us !

inigyou 2 hours ago||
Libera (formerly Freenode) and Rizon are still around, moderately lower in absolute numbers, drastically lower in percentage of total internet usage.
pjc50 3 hours ago|||
I remember from the MUD era there was a paper (possibly by Richard Bartle) on the "MUD lifecycle", and how they tended to last on average two years before the operators got bored / burned out / the community left / there was an Incident.
inigyou 2 hours ago||
Someone showed me something about Old-School Runescape recently and it struck me how quickly the game evolved. I played it in high school for two years at most. If you rewind or fast-forward in two year increments at a time, a lot about the game is barely recognizable each time. I think if you rewound two years from my play time, there was unlimited free trade, no grand exchange, and two or three fewer skills, and if you fast-forwarded two years, you got unlimited free trade again and the Evolution of Combat. It really puts in perspective how the people who make games are not planning the perfect game and then spending 10 years building it (except for Jon Blow) - they're flying by the seat of their pants. Apparently in 2001, the game's creators expected that nobody would ever reach the maximum level in any skill.
pjc50 1 hour ago||
Oh yes, same for Warcraft, Ultima etc. Multiplayer games necessarily exist in a "dialogue" with their players. There's a tendency for players to optimize the fun out of games, as well. Someone discovers a dominant strategy, and then everyone feels they have to use it.

It is a bit risky, and I think the broader internet can make it worse. There's always the risk of a massive falling-out between players and developers which can sink the game. Latest example is probably the Love and Deepspace fiasco, but we've seen quite a few failed launches recently.

tommek4077 3 hours ago||
The old net is still there to a degree, but we live in pre-Alta Vista times again. It is hard to find. (I know as I run an old-school Forum and RPG-Game for more than 20 years now.)
charcircuit 14 hours ago||
It would be beneficial for the author to look at the revenue for Google Search. Revenue is still growing.
mrweasel 39 minutes ago||
The is something that someone really should study, along with "Who are buying ad space". My theory is that the quality, for a lack of a better term, of advertisers are going down.

Let's say I need a new vacuum cleaner and do a Google search. I get eight sponsored products. Three a links to stores I'd expect, the rest are fairly unknown sites, mostly the "We sell everything" stores. Weirdly enough also only one of them are via Google ads directly, the rest are via PriceToro and Channable, both of which I don't know.

My personal theory is that Google is still making pretty good money, but from increasingly questionable ads.

panarky 14 hours ago|||
Indeed.

Not only is search revenue growing, but it is growing at an accelerating rate.

At the same time, operating margins are expanding.

I don't know the name of the logical fallacy where someone personally uses an LLM instead of Google Search and then infers that the search business is dying, without ever reading a financial statement.

Chinjut 13 hours ago|||
Indeed. Money over everything. It is absurd to complain about decreasing quality of a product that makes increasing money for increasingly rich people (thus, by definition, better).
carlosjobim 13 hours ago||
If business owners are paying for ads, then it doesn't matter a iota to Google or Facebook if real people use their services. It would be even better for them if real people didn't use their services, since that would save some costs. Business owners are going to keep paying for the ads, as long as they get some number about how many (bot) impressions their ad generated.
echelon 14 hours ago||
There is probably a lag time before advertisers give up on AdSense.

A lot of corporate ad spend is already planned, and Google can adjust the costs up as much as they like. They hold the lever.

charcircuit 14 hours ago||
If search engine competitors were really eating Google's lunch then ad impressions would go down.
nitwit005 6 hours ago||
They don't have much of an offering yet. OpenAI has some conventional ads, but everyone expects more involved advertising integrated into the conversation itself somehow.
charcircuit 5 hours ago||
Even if the alternatives would have no advertising the number of ad impressions of Google Search would go down.

In the article it mentions the rise of other search competitors like Qwant implying they are causing Google to die as it bleeds market share to them.

georgemcbay 14 hours ago||
From a user perspective, Google search is the most useful it has been in years, though that doesn't feel entirely like intentional improvement, just a lucky side effect of the move to "AI mode".

And yes, if you take what the AI tells you at face value it could be wrong. But if you are aware of this and aware of the ways in which LLMs are likely to shit the bed, it is quicker to get from request to useful information than it has been with Google search since like 2017.

And also, yes, the old balance of Google driving clicks to sites that will then generate revenue off more Google Ads being shown after you click through to them creating a virtuous cycle is completely busted, and that sucks. It does not impact me directly but it certainly seems like unless a better system is devised that it is one of a few ways in which AI is likely to stall out its own training funnel.

bloaf 14 hours ago||
As someone who regularly reads things online, then wants to read them again like 3 years later, Google has been monotonically declining in quality.

Also I realized the other day how hard it is to find song lyrics for anything other than quite mainstream songs.

Terr_ 13 hours ago|||
It used to be I could always find the quote I wanted from a book. Nowadays I need to keep my own copies...
swed420 12 hours ago||
> Nowadays I need to keep my own copies...

https://github.com/asciimoo/hister

> Hister is a private search engine for the pages you visit and the files you keep. It indexes their full contents so you can find information again from the web interface, terminal, or an AI assistant connected through MCP.

georgemcbay 14 hours ago|||
> As someone who regularly reads things online, then wants to read them again like 3 years later, Google has been monotonically declining in quality.

I generally agree, but I think AI mode actually improved things somewhat compared to how things were just prior to it existing.

And I'm not saying what we have now is better than Golden Age Google, but things were just getting worse and worse for almost a decade. AI didn't fix the decade worth of decline, but it is the first thing I've seen from Google that at least partially reversed it for my own usage.

bloaf 13 hours ago||
I think they make things worse, because they very very often present straight inaccurate information.

Just the other day I was trying to find out "What american tree species have the deepest roots". And all the AI responses were giving me back generic lists of big trees and claiming that roots going 20ft deep were the deepest. I know for a fact the mesquite trees behind my house can easily grow roots > 100 ft deep.

If I had clicked on the articles with generic lists of big trees, I would have realized they were all low quality clickbait sources and moved on. But the AI presentation makes you think that the information comes well-researched.

Gualdrapo 14 hours ago||
> But if you are aware of this and aware of the ways in which LLMs are likely to shit the bed, it is quicker to get from request to useful information than it has been with Google search since like 2017.

The point is not about 'quicker' requests but precise requests. It definitely has worsened, though not on a single degree on al levels like the HN hivemind claims, but some aspects are still somewhat precise but others are definitely crap.

i.e. when searching about my neighborhood it still returns better results than bing, yahoo, ddg, yandex and what have you. But they are buried into a load of crap of alleged "relevant" results (those things past the ai stuff) that aren't relevant in any way.

bloaf 14 hours ago||
Yandex is the only search engine left which still feels like the "old" web. It feels like you're actually getting a best effort search, and not just the results that someone paid to put in front of you.
fragmede 2 hours ago||
yeah, but the article sucks. The title is Ting, but the author asks a thing in google's AI answer socks and then they spend a couple paragraphs pontificating about that then they participate some other bullshit like.. But here we are, talking about it. le sigh.
forgetfreeman 13 hours ago||
The most frustrating part of all of this is the underlying premise that the internet is, has been, or could ever be a credible cultural record is deeply stupid. Or maybe more charitably it's both historically and technically illiterate. It has always taken continuous unwavering effort on some person's part to keep any given piece of content online. And while managing a simple hosting account and updating domain registration periodically doesn't take a tremendous amount of effort 20 years is a long time to expect anyone to maintain enthusiasm. The internet has always been a frothy, ever changing blend of the odd nugget of truth drifting in a sea of unadulterated bullshit. Treating this, or worse what comes from statistically averaging it, as a source of capital T truth is totally unhinged. From whence did this mythology of online truth spring?
peyton 13 hours ago||
What’s come next for me has been much better. I use ChatGPT cranked to Pro with “extended” thinking to one-shot whatever I would’ve spent time looking into with Google. It’ll plan the whole sunset bike ride or promposal or whatever from TFA.
amazingamazing 14 hours ago|
[2011] The Atlantic - Why Google Won't Survive the Facebook Threat.

I’ll add this article to the list of incorrect predictions lol

More comments...