• TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      90
      ·
      6 months ago

      Somehow this is worse than Reddit. Sure Reddit isn’t good, but at least Reddit was sane enough to understand concepts like ‘working too much is deeply unhealthy both physically and mentally’ and ‘corporations should not hold absolute power’

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      6 months ago

      There is a large collection of poorly written articles/blogs on LinkedIn, actually. They are just bad enough to be good enough for Google.

      Strangely enough, LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft actually let Google use it as a data source, it was to sabotage Google’s AI training.

    • Boozilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Reddit wisdom:

      “This”

      “Bacon”

      “OK, boomer”

      pun thread 37 levels deep

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      6 months ago

      I wonder how Reddit investors are feeling when they find out even Google couldn’t pull something valuable out of the Reddit data

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yet I still add “Reddit” to a search query when looking for product reviews or technical/home maintenance support, lol

        I can do it really well manually…but Google’s AI sucks at it.

        They forgot to account for trolls…and how often trolls would get upvoted for the lulz

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 months ago

          sarcasm is already hard to understand online, even harder for generative AI

          I know sometimes I would take a peek at the person’s comment history to see if they were well informed / a shill for the product. The AI can’t do that

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Generative AI doesn’t understand anything, it just adds it to it’s model. If more people are being sarcastic than genuine in the data set, that’ll be more represented in the generated text.

            AI could categorize users by competency (i.e. how often they discuss specific topics and agree with some corpus), but I doubt it does that. It’s probably just taking posts at face value.

            • Balder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Doing that would require significantly more compute power, so there’s little economic incentive.

            • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              AI could categorize users by competency (i.e. how often they discuss specific topics and agree with some corpus), but I doubt it does that. It’s probably just taking posts at face value.

              This is not being done though right? I haven’t heard anything about content ranking with connections outside of Google seemingly using authors name is articles from large news sources.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I know it’s not “intelligent”, but I don’t get gatekeeping the phrase “AI”.

            We were perfectly happy to use “AI” to refer to the logic of computer-controlled enemies in video games for probably decades.

    • Odelay42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Unfortunately it’s pocket change for them.

      Meaningless wager that despite not paying off still probably taught them an enormous amount about reddit and its users.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I would have taught Google everything they wanted to know about Reddit and Redditors for only $30 million.

  • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    6 months ago

    “wait what if someone asks a question and Google AI quickly directs that person to the most relevant resources. Now wouldn’t that be a great innovation.”

    -Some shareholder or CEO probably

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well, here’s the part where I hope people are able to make a Wikipedia alternative so we can turn Wikipedia into a cesspool to ensure the enshitification of gøøg|e. That, and if I ever get a Wikipedia article made about me (which will probably never happen), I’m signing up with an account and absolutely trashing it to say things that will cause whatever any AI looking at it to spout the most absurd shit.