120
Generative A.I. a Parasitic Cancer
(www.youtube.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
120 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37825 readers
941 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"google-fu" is a skill. it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be perfectly proficient. and it seems like you are saying "just perfectly define your search query to match the exact result you need every time" which, i think most would agree is often very difficult even if your fu is quite good. I think this might actually be an np problem. I used to have good fu, these days I find that google sometimes breaks or ignores my quotes, changes exact wordings to thesaurus matches, shit like that. also, there are filter bubbles.
now we're adding to all of those already known uncontroversial challenges to googling the information "pollution" of low-quality unsupervised chatbot hallucinations where genuine good search results might otherwise go. it's not that it's unfindable- that's not what the op video claims. it's that the signal-to-noise ratio is intolerably low, and that basically by design.
and yes, it seems there is still room for human-creative solutions to these search problems, like the one you suggest which basically rearranges words and exchanges some thesaurus hits. sort of like how you can sometimes "jailbreak" llms by TaLkInG tO tHeM lIkE ThIs. for now. actually, they probably already patched that.
The "google-fu" in this case was to search for ".glb format specification" when seeking the .glb format specification.
This really doesn't seem like a huge challenge requiring sophisticated skills.
The thing that's wanted is not one link to the official protocol specification document along with a dozen links to SEO-optimized AI-generated time-wasting nonsense. It's a large set of links to diverse interesting sources discussing the topic searched for and things adjacent to it. The web was never perfect, but we were much closer to that ideal ten years ago than we are today.
Someone's complaining about the war and you've come along with a pair of earplugs saying wear these, you won't even hear the bombs.
This is wildly diverging from "I want the specs for a file format."
Apologies if my initial comment somehow reinforced your misconception that the linked video was all about the difficulty of finding the specs for the file format.
well yes, it seems there is still room for human-creative solutions to these search problems, like the one you suggest which basically rearranges words and exchanges some thesaurus hits. it seems like you are saying “just perfectly define your search query to match the exact result you need every time” which, i think most would agree is often very difficult even if your fu is quite good. I think this might actually be an np problem. i also think most people would reasonably expect ".glb file format" to bring up information about the glb file format, including specs, at or very near the top of results. in evidence of most people's expectations here, i submit the entire rest of the thread where your experience is an outlier.