I've heard some pretty sad excuses for AI slop (Shunned at a Funeral) but some very clever uses for it too (Amelia). "The best thing the government did...was invent me!"
As long as they're honest about it being AI I'll decide what I want to listen to. It's hard for it to show any creativity, but creativity is sorely lacking in all current music.
...laura
The new system is simply another set of inputs. You will still get search results even if you don't click on anything. In fact, I would bet that actual user interaction with this new system is going to be very small. Most of the input that Google will get will be people trying to game the system.
I didn't even know about Kagi. In fact, it has been a long time since I have even considered using someone besides Google. I just resigned myself to the idea that things were forever broken. Thanks for the insight.
Ancient Rome made amazing aqueducts. One day they had built all the ones they really needed and with no new projects for a new generation to learn from, they quickly just forgot how to make aqueducts.
"Big Tech" is now entering this phase. In a generation all innovation will be gone.
900$ for a base model with 256GB SSD is pathetic.
Then make it retroactive. Donate the proceeds to the victims of this program who had to train their replacements.
That is a very good point. duckduckgo.com (to use an example) does not summarize the search results for you, and, once you know what to look for the ads are clearly marked. To be honest, purchasing ads on duckduckgo.com is likely a sign of good taste on the part of the advertiser as well. Honestly, I hadn't even considered using a non-Google search option for a long time. That is almost certainly part of the problem. Thanks for your response.
Most of their revenue is from the cloud, but they still want Linux off the desktop.
MS couldn't give 2 shits about Linux on the Desktop. It's a tiny and irrelevant market share to them.
Not in 2003 it wasn't
Does anyone actually have any evidence PJ was a real person and not just a persona created by IBM's PR department? PJ appeared mysteriously, exclusively posting stuff supportive of IBM's position in this case. They never turned their attention to any other litigation. It's awfully suspicious. You'd think a real person who knew that much about the relevant law would have opinions on other cases as well, and you'd expect them to market themselves using the fame/goodwill generated with Groklaw. You'd also think they'd have done at least one interview, or you could find at least one person who's met them. I'm not saying anything posted on Groklaw wasn't true, just that it always seemed like a very successful IBM PR exercise to me.
Her name is Pamela Jones, she was a paralegal. She's done real interviews in the past. She was/is real!
Given that we live in a "market-driven" society, the correct conclusion is that companies are refusing to properly compensate skilled workers.
With executive pay at all time highs and the gap between executive and workers larger than ever, I would agree. This is a failure in the system where boards of directors are not holding executives accountable. The system can't hold for long.
The baby killers always lie. Absolute scum of the earth
There was nothing automatic about Google's trustworthiness. It simply counted up links that lead back to a particular page. If it had more links it was (supposedly) a better page. Almost immediately webmasters around the world started gaming the system. Google still restricts some of the things my account can do for hidden links that were added to some ads on websites that I ran in like 2001. GoDaddy and all of the other big web hosting companies of that era all rose to prominence on the strength of gaming the PageRank system.
I am sure that other industries tell the same story.
PageRank might seem trustworthy to you, but that's only because you weren't trying to game the system back in the day. I can assure you that, right from the start, people were abusing PageRank in precisely the same way that upsets you now. The only difference was that registering a domain back then cost $70 for two years, and you probably created the links you used to game the system by writing Perl. That raised the barrier to entry significantly. However, there was still real money to be made in that arena, and whether the winners paid Google directly, or paid for back links to their content (or both), I can guarantee you that the road to your trust was paved in money.
In the end Google has decided that the most reliable way to have publishers show that their information is trustworthy is to force them to pay for the privilege. Coincidentally that also happens to be the method that makes Google the most money. For years an entire SEO industry has thrived around the idea that if you pay someone enough money they can trick Google to steal your information instead of your competitors. Now we are finally at the endgame and Google doesn't even send traffic. They simply summarize the information for their customers. Chances are excellent that you don't even leave the google.com domain.
Google's competitors are simply doing the same thing at a different domain. All of them make their money by charging publishers to show up prominently in search ranks. Whether you are rooting for Oceania, Eurasia, or Eastasia it's Big Brother all of the way down.
"Japan is preparing a nonbinding "comply or explain" code that would urge generative AI companies"
This has no teeth whatsoever
Real Users hate Real Programmers.
