[HN Gopher] Bing sees 15.8% boost in visits following GPT-4 push... ___________________________________________________________________ Bing sees 15.8% boost in visits following GPT-4 push, as Google sees a decline Author : carlycue Score : 487 points Date : 2023-03-24 18:01 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | chopete3 wrote: | It is move over google.com moment. The era of ai.com and its ilk | (bing/skype) has begun -even momentarily. | | If you are not using ai.com for your everyday information, you | are missing out something. | | The one that asks their questions in a smart way has an edge over | people typing random keywords and hoping to learn. | CuriouslyC wrote: | This doesn't fit into the ChatGPT narrative, but Google's most | recent search update has been _BAD_ for me. Results are actively | worse than from Bing in many cases, to the point that though I | haven 't switched my default yet I often navigate to Bing for | many classes of query where Google is useless. | AzzieElbab wrote: | Last time I used bing on my grandparents laptop it sent me to | scammers instead of the largest cell carrier in the country. AI | or not AI, unfocused engineering has no cure | somsak2 wrote: | https://archive.is/aSFxw | favaq wrote: | I signed up to the Bing GPT "beta" waitlist (I hadn't logged into | my Microsoft account in years) only to be told, days later, that | I had to use Edge to try it. I noped out of there. | standyro wrote: | you don't ACTUALLY have to use edge to use it. just use a | chrome extension to fake your useragent to pretend to be Edge. | I despise needless microsoft hubris | hbn wrote: | You can just install the app on your phone and use it | favaq wrote: | I'd rather install edge on my computer than type more than | one sentence using my phone. | someNameIG wrote: | On iOS you can use voice search in the app. | WhereIsTheTruth wrote: | Google trends shows a different picture: | https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%201-d&q=%2... | | Close to no change | | Who to trust? | iLoveOncall wrote: | You are looking at a 1 day timeframe, you can very clearly see | the increase if you look at 90 days: | https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=... | (included just "Bing" as term too) | WhereIsTheTruth wrote: | Ohh now this looks much better, thanks! Looks like i need | some sleep.. lol | treve wrote: | Assuming this is not a troll, google trends measures how often | people search something on google. The URL you linked shows how | often people search the word 'Bing' on google. | | If Bing has an uptick, that doesn't necessarily mean that they | first go to Google to find Bing and then do their actual | search. | WhereIsTheTruth wrote: | A troll? That's a surprising accusation! | | I'm not a troll, I noticed and irregularity with data | available and their announcement, that's it.. | harrisonjackson wrote: | The rise of gpt generated content is no doubt degrading search | results, as well. | | Google must be feeling the squeeze from all over. | thexumaker wrote: | Look google aint the best but I tried bing for a day and still | hated it and an AI chatbot that spews out incorrect info atm | isn't gonna change my behavior lol | Bukhmanizer wrote: | Honestly these numbers are worse than I was expecting for Bing. | Can they maintain these numbers when they're not releasing new | products people want to try? | firechickenbird wrote: | Why should I trust these random charts? Where do you get the data | from? Feels like sponsored fake news by bing | WirelessGigabit wrote: | Good. Google has ruined the web. It has cultivated an insane | amount of websites that just have loads of useless cruft around | around the information they offer. | | It has also cultivated a behavior of these stock answers that you | see popping up on multiple websites with a reference to THEIR | product at the end of the article. I see it with technical | problems (partition wizard, windowserrorreport, ...). It's your | overall run dism / sfc and install & buy our product. | | Then people moved to YouTube, and as a result there are now | autogenerated videos for KBs on the internet if you have issues | with those. What this means is that whenever you're looking for | an issue that occurs with a single KB, you get all these generic | answers which HIDE potential solutions of other people | experiencing the SAME thing. | | The same applies to pest control, insane amount of lies (dangers | of black widows, rabies from squirrels, ...) to get higher in the | Google ranks and push their product. | | Also applies to doctors offices, there are companies who put out | these generic pages with 'solutions' telling you to make an | appointment. | | The worst part about all of this is that Google (and Bing, and | DuckDuckGo for that matter) no longer respect me searching for 2 | terms. For example, I search for "KB123456 issue". I'll get | results for KB123456, but nothing mentioning the issue. And | you're like: maybe it doesn't exist? Except that I read it | multiple times half a year ago with the solution, and I was not | smart enough to save it somewhere. | | A search engine used to be to help you search and get your | answer, fast and focused. Now it is pulling everything out of the | closed to make you deviate from that. Suggestions, audio, video, | etc. | | All while researching something for work. And then I get a Slack | message from someone saying 'Hello!'. And then nothing. | | <insert head explode gif> | techmba wrote: | i cant believe google put out such a poor version of bard. | everyone will immediately compare results and disregard bard | quickly. they made this same mistake with other launches. | kevinwang wrote: | Only 15%? I would have expected 1000% increase or so | throwyawayyyy wrote: | Right? I'd have been entirely unsurprised if Bing saw a 100% | increase, given how buzzy all this has been. (Finally, an | actual reason to use Bing!) 15% seems like a failure. | asciimov wrote: | If past Google products are any indication, Alphabet will pull | funding and resources out of Google Web Search and put it to the | graveyard. | HeavyFeather wrote: | _Over my dead body._ | | You realize that Google Search still brings in mountains of | cash, right? Search generates 57% of Alphabet's total revenue. | [1] | | We're extremely far from that point. [1]: | https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/how-does-google-make-money- | advertising-business-breakdown-.html | henry_viii wrote: | Currently in Bing Chat: | | - when scrolling down the page goes to Bing Search | | - when typing predictive suggestions show up | | I would use Bing even more if I knew how to disable these things. | Does anyone know if this is possible? | fnbr wrote: | I love this (even though I have ~25% of my net worth in $GOOG). | | Google got fat and lazy. They focused inwards, on promo driven | development and executive infighting. This was awful for the tech | ecosystem as Google was held out for a long time as the company | to emulate. | | No longer. | | They're gonna be forced to actually compete: for talent, for | users, for mindshare. | t_minus_2 wrote: | The broader question may not be whether its Bing or Google. | People may not be searching anymore to find the sites which can | potentially answer a problem/query - instead they may just want | the answer. GPT/LLms may even slow down the whole search engine | industry or make it more like chatgpt versions of it. | justinzollars wrote: | I'm personally using less Google and more ChatGPT. Google results | seem irrelevant. this giant could be in trouble | AlbertCory wrote: | On MBA's in relation to the hastily launched and then cancelled | products: Enron had the same issue. | | https://albertcory50.substack.com/p/when-talent-is-not-enoug... | | on Sundar: I've talked to a few technology journalists, and one | said that he's met _all_ the top CEO 's and Sundar was the least | impressive of any of them. | | His days are numbered. What's the over-under on when he leaves? | bilsbie wrote: | How does a mortal use gpt with bing? I need to install an app? | ModernMech wrote: | Sad day for me. Bing actually gives you points to search on their | engine. I just cashed in a bunch of points for a $100 gift card. | My guess is this program will go away if Bing becomes more | popular. | sourcecodeplz wrote: | What the rate for you? Because for me its 15k points for 10 | USD. | ModernMech wrote: | I had over 100k points lol. | jmartrican wrote: | I went right back to Google. It just had better results. | csdvrx wrote: | Is It Possible to Learn This Power? | | Because google is 99% spam for me | lordnacho wrote: | uBlock plus some filters that remove the ads. Someone also | made one that filters out the stackoverflow copy sites. | jmartrican wrote: | lol. I noticed it depends on what I search for. I typically | search for programming issues. Google tends to have the | correct Stack Overflow answer up at the top. But I agree a | bunch of ads otherwise. | realusername wrote: | That was bound to happen at some point, AI or not. Google search | quality has been declining more and more every year, to the point | that I'm almost sure that you could build a better and smaller | index for much cheaper with a curated domain list. | | AI brought down the price to compete from billions to a few | millions, the monopoly is being threatened. | Aperocky wrote: | 15.8% boost vs "near 1%" decline. | | News title at its finest, the "near 1%" must not make it to the | title for maximum effect. | nixcraft wrote: | And the title is: "OpenAI tech gives Microsoft's Bing a boost | in search battle with Google". | johnfn wrote: | I imagine 1% of Google is well more than 15.8% of Bing :) | jeffbee wrote: | Yeah, 0.03*1.16 is still 3% to a close approximation. | hbn wrote: | The graph showing the deviation from each search engine's 100% | baseline is kinda telling considering Bing is all over the | place with it actually seeing some traffic, and Google is a | consistent up-and-down shape that doesn't seem affected at all | by whatever is happening with Bing. | culopatin wrote: | I feel like I'm missing out on something but other than to | summarize text or fill pointless and lazy homework assignments I | don't have much of a use of gpt search. I think I have a trust | issue with it and I rather get the raw result and process it | myself than to believe that what this model "understood" is | right. Anyone else feels this way? | jacamera wrote: | The most illuminating thing about ChatGPT for me is just how | terrible most programmers on HN apparently are. I thought it | was just a funny meme that all we do is copy/paste from Stack | Overflow but apparently that is literally what a lot of people | are doing all day. | yokoprime wrote: | People who blindly copy from ChatGPT or Stack Overflow are | most likely either very inexperienced or simply bad | programmers. However, from where I see it, ChatGPT, Copilot, | and any other such tools are fantastic at prompting you to | think differently, getting you past writer's block, giving | you ideas, or saving you some time googling for syntax yet | again. You need a nudge to trigger recall of what you already | know. It's a fantastic tool, just like an IDE. | pwinnski wrote: | It's sad how most programmers are so terrible they need IDEs | to automatically create stubs for required methods or getters | and setters. They should have to type all of that out every | time, and from memory, too! VIM with no plugins is the only | way to do it! | | Or, you know, smart developers use tools appropriate to the | work, and some of us have figured out how to use this new | tool before you have. That's okay, you can catch up! | thwayunion wrote: | Meh. | | I was working on a personal project yesterday to answer some | questions I had about how liquidity risk works for money | market mutual funds, and to forecast/nowcast liquidity risk | and NAV risk for a bunch of funds. | | Mind you: I don't know the first thing about anything | financial. I was just curious. | | chatgpt gave me a bunch of sources of data that I wanted, | translating my lay description of things I wanted to know | into financial terms of art. I could then look up legal | definitions and formulas for those terms to make sure they | were what I thought they were. chatgpt also told me which SEC | forms those things are disclosed on, what data brokers I | could use for other data, etc. | | between chatgpt and copilot I saved at least an hour on the | job of pulling down historical data from EDGAR for a bunch of | funds and getting the stats I wanted (I didn't know EDGAR | existed until yesterday, and the xml/html/txt formats are | kind of annoying... like, fine, but a bit of a pita so I'm | glad I had help because ughhh is that kind of code boring and | damn are LLMs good few-shot inductive parser generators!). | Also wrote some nice chart.js code for me and helped with | automatically collecting, searching, and extracting some key | stats and terms from prospectuses. I didn't know about | chart.js until yesterday. | | All of this would've been possible without assistants, and | required a lot of "executive function" on my part to bring | together, but it seriously saved me at least a couple hours | of implementation work and up to a day on research and | learning terminology and regulatory stuff. Again, | verification of those things is way easier when you know what | words to look up definitions for. And chatgpt did make | mistakes/hallucinate. | | I don't find much use in my professional life, where the code | I'm writing is apparently too domain-specific for copilot to | be helpful and the mathematics is too complex for chatgpt to | help with. Maybe in a few years. We'll see. | saberience wrote: | This comment is giving me "Look at me I'm so very smart" | vibes. | | If you don't have enough insight to understand how GPT4 could | be useful for engineers you're not as enlightened as you | think you are. | aPoCoMiLogin wrote: | This comment is giving me "Look at me I'm so very smart" | vibes. | deely3 wrote: | Did you suddenly become defensive? | smoe wrote: | I certainly have the trust issues for things where correctness | matters. For things were it doesn't and I already know how to | do something but don't have it memorized, I think it is very | very convenient. | | I use it various times a week for cooking. E.g. "basic recipe | bechamel sauce in metric" | | ChatGPT: Within a couple seconds I get the ingredients in | metric and a step by step guide. | | Google: The provided summaries are useless to me since they are | not in metric. So I have to click on a link and then start | scrolling around all the noise of history of bechamel sauce, | anecdotes about someones grandparents, pretty pictures, etc to | find the actual information. Without ad blocker it would be an | even bigger nightmare. | ipaddr wrote: | Before a few keywords and quick website scan. | | Now you have to engage in a conversation and get the 'a feel | lucky' version where before you got to look through different | more visual recipes | smoe wrote: | I don't need to engage in a conversation. Query was exactly | the same for both. | | There is a difference whether I'm looking for interesting, | more complicated dishes I haven't done before, or fairly | standardized, simple recipes I have done many times and | remember the technique but not things like ratios. | | For the former I use a select few recipe sites or youtube | channels directly. Google is miserable for discovery in my | opinion. For the latter I use either my own recipe notebook | or more recently ChatGPT as well. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | Well, Microsoft forced me to use Edge to open Bing chat, so I | did that and asked it "how can you use bing chat on chrome?". | It pointed me to a chrome extension that allows that. See, it's | useful. | lumb63 wrote: | I agree with your sentiment exactly. But your comment made me | think about this an interesting way that I hadn't thought about | before, that made me better understand why I am "anti-GPT | search". | | All the same things that the model makes an effort to | "understand" are things that can contribute to your own | understanding. When it "understands", you do not. You get the | summary and miss out on a great amount of nuance that can come | with learning and finding the right answer for yourself. | | For instance, it is very common that in the search for why X is | happening in my code, I will find tons of information that | don't answer my question but help me form an understanding of | why it is happening, how the system is working, etc. | | This is especially visible in science. Many papers outright | conflict with each other. Some have better or worse | methodologies than others. Some have better analyses. Some | state outright falsehoods without citation or misinterpret | citations. Having a GPT "understand" this to produce | understanding in humans is going to end very badly. It takes | several hours for a human (in my experience) to understand even | a single academic paper on its own. | | I suppose the appropriate cliche is "it's the journey, not the | destination". | ambicapter wrote: | A great quote from an article I read on HN recently | | > Suppose I was an evil person and wanted to eliminate the | curiosity of children. Give the kid a diet of Google, and | pretty soon the child learns that every question he has is | answered instantly. The coolest thing about being human is to | learn, but you don't learn things by looking it up; you learn | by figuring it out. | JohnMakin wrote: | This is silly. You could extrapolate the same argument to | use against Libraries. | Dalewyn wrote: | Most of the people here know and understand computers | because we had to tear everything apart and figure out | how everything worked just so we could play some video | games. | | Contrast kids of today who can just go and play video | games, no disecting of computers required. Naturally, | most of them don't understand or appreciate computers as | anything more than just another appliance. | sorokod wrote: | Not silly, it's a quantity into quality thing. | moffkalast wrote: | As opposed to the thing we did before, which is when kids | asked something they were told something that's wrong and | told to "stop talking back" and "go to your room". I think | this is still an improvement. | ipaddr wrote: | What chatGPT misses is I want many sources of information | conflicting or not so I can form a more informed opinion. I | want to know every side not the correct one. | user3939382 wrote: | For me it's not even theoretical. I've already wasted my time | trying to sus out subtle garbage mixed into its answers. It's | the same reason I stopped using copilot. I don't need or want | that. | unshavedyak wrote: | Funny, so far i've been just asking it things i normally ask | Google. Same paranoia of answers that StackOverflow/etc give | me, but far quicker and more responsive. | | TBH i'm not sure under what scenarios people search into | Google expecting perfect answers. Ie where we're disappointed | by incorrect information. I filter through a dozen wrong | answers on Google every day. Why is it different if it's from | ChatGPT? | user3939382 wrote: | I guess one difference is that I have a lot (decades?) of | experience in the _types of errors_ humans tend to make. | Humans have certain biases, certain blindspots, etc. In | programming for sure, there are very strong patterns in the | types of mistakes we make that tend to be a function of | skill or experience. So you (I) look for those without even | thinking about it. Violation of YAGNI, ACID, DRY, pre- | mature optimization, etc. | | Even before getting to an answer I can often judge how | trustworthy or skilled the author/speaker is likely to be | by all kinds of little signals or keywords in their speech. | | ChatGPT (and Github co-pilot) disables that highly tuned | error detection and correction experience. It makes | unpredictable mistakes, which is peculiarly pernicious. I'm | sure it varies by the temperament of the user. Personally I | don't have the patience for that. | unshavedyak wrote: | Good points. I think it also helps that i purposefully | avoid asking for things that i can't validate. The easier | it is to validate the more likely i am to ask. | | I find ChatGPT especially great with giving starting | points. It kinda feels like 10 (or something... time?) | years ago when i discovered how good Google was at | finding movies based on vague wishy-washy definitions. If | i don't know what to call something ChatGPT does a better | job at pointing me in the right direction. Often giving | the right answer. | | But i'm not saying it has lasting power. We'll see. So | far i'm using Search engines less than ever. | Invictus0 wrote: | Yup, and maybe we're just getting old. There are still people | on HN complaining about Google removing the OR and AND | modifiers, meanwhile the younger generations write queries like | "where should I eat breakfast today" | bentcorner wrote: | I used to try to be surgical with my queries but I've given | up and just type a question at my search engine because if | that's what they want as a query well they're going to get | it. | bluefirebrand wrote: | I'm fine with writing queries like "Where should I eat | breakfast" | | But I hate seeing the top half of the screen are ads for huge | chains, and then the top results are blog posts about "Where | are the top 10 places to eat in your city" and not a list of | restaurant web pages. | detaro wrote: | Those aren't really exclusive. Different problems, different | query types. (I wouldn't quite do the second example like | that, but "where can I get food here" is fundamentally | different problem than "I hope there is somewhere out there a | bootleg copy of the datasheet for this very weird part and no | I don't mean any of these 5 easily-confused other things", | which is when the lack/ignoring of detailed modifiers drives | you up the wall) | Invictus0 wrote: | I'm just trying to point out that that query would have | returned nothing much at all back in the age of keyword- | lookup search. | BrianOnHN wrote: | Not since Google results became such garbage. Plus, the chats | provide references. So easy to verify. | AviationAtom wrote: | I love that Bing Chat actually links to references. It felt | like something was missing from ChatGPT without it. | rtsil wrote: | If I have to check each reference, what's the added value | compared to just giving me a list of links (i.e. a good old | search engine)? | | Chat search tools are only useful if (when?) they achieve a | 99.99% reliability (I'm fine with one mistake per 1000 | searches). | HeavyFeather wrote: | Just because it does, it doesn't mean they're being | interpreted correctly, so watch out for | https://xkcd.com/906/ | AviationAtom wrote: | In the context of LLMs they aren't really sources, just | additional reference material. I'd trust what Bing Chat | tells me far before I'd trust Google's new Bard AI. It | legit started making up non-existent commands for me to | use. | cmelbye wrote: | I've found that if you push through the trust issue with the | expectation that it's not a final answer, it's just getting you | closer to it a lot more quickly, then that ends up being very | helpful in a lot of cases. | bradly wrote: | Here is what I have asked it the past few days with great | results: - What is the trim stop attachment | that comes with the Festool DF 500 used for? - What | are some options for water for a home with no municiple water | or well access? - What dimensions drawer should I | make when using 18" Blum Blumotion full extension drawer slides | if the drawer opening is 20 inches wide, 18 inches deep and | seven inches tall? - Can the smaller Laguna 14 | bandsaw motor be replaced with the 3HP version? - | What's the best way to get ChatGPT support if the official | support page is not working? - I'm trying to | remember a 90s movie about a boy prodigy that goes to an event | with other prodigies and then shouts out an answer to a math | question from the audience. | reaperducer wrote: | _What 's the best way to get ChatGPT support if the official | support page is not working?_ | | Ooh! What was the answer to this one? | | I tried to sign up for ChatGPT, but the verification text | never arrives. | | (No, it's not a soft phone. I've had the same phone number on | the same cell carrier for over 20 years.) | bradly wrote: | It said to email support@openai.com | noah_buddy wrote: | You have touched on something I am incredibly excited about. | ChatGPT is going to do away with a lot of the intro level | questions you ask researching certain sorts of technical | problems, especially as it becomes better able to understand | images. ChatGPT removes the need for you to ever open a | manual (unless you want a deep understanding). | | How do I turn off this feature in my car? | | How do I replace the fan in my fridge's compressor? | | Why is windows repair not working in this scenario with this | PC? | | This tool is going to be incredibly deflationary in many | services geared around repair when now it can tell you almost | exactly what to do and soon it'll be able to produce videos | or images of each step on demand. | ByThyGrace wrote: | > and soon it'll be able to produce videos or images of | each step on demand | | As long as they're not hallucinated media... | Dma54rhs wrote: | Most of the Googles SERP results already are delusional | or hallucinating spam, so the bar is low and for me at | least ChatGTP is less bullshit. | trafficante wrote: | Yeah, when the "site:" search hack doesn't get me an | answer and I fall back on the normal SERPs, most of the | time the top several results are all: | | "Authoritative title that references my exact search" -> | page body restates my question, gives an oddly reworded | summary of Thing in Question #1 -> "some people online | have said" followed by snippets lifted from the ether -> | repeat for Things 2,3,etc -> "our suggestion is to look | at the features and decide based on what other | customers/users are saying" | | It's perfected vapidity wearing the skin of an editorial | review site and takes a LOT more cognitive load to suss | out the phoneyness compared to the last time the SERPs | were packed with spam (~10 years back). | code_runner wrote: | hallucinations don't invalidate the product itself. I | really hate to see this constant lazy refrain on here. | | Its just like anything else. Trust but verify. Some will | just trust, others never will... People probably over- | trust the tech now, but just like wikipedia it will be | approached a little more carefully as people learn its | shortcomings. | | Unless you're trying to perform open heart surgery or | doing something intrinsically dangerous, its probably | going to be additive. I wouldn't trust it to help me | assemble a warp engine, but it may be able to give me | some decent pointers for guitar technique or how to | change my oil. | throwaway1851 wrote: | It's not a lazy refrain, it's a serious downside of the | technology. It's tiring and stressful to supervise the | work product of an assistant that is extremely capable | sometimes, but a compulsive bullshitter at other times. | Just as it's tiring to supervise an "autonomous" car that | often deftly navigates the road, but sometimes wants to | plow into a school bus. | pwinnski wrote: | I think that the concern about LLMs making up information | are absolutely valid, and a serious concern. At the same | time, I think most people focusing on those concerns | aren't thinking much about the alternatives, namely | Google. | | For many people, Google results have gone from being an | absolutely amazing demonstration of what could be done if | one had the resources to crawl and process the entire | internet to a complete waste of time at best, clogged | with spam and nonsense and misinformation. I've been | using Duck Duck Go for years now, and recently my middle- | schooler switched to Duck Duck Go because I got answer to | a question she had already asked Google before checking | with me. Some people even pay for Kagi search, because | Google is just that bad. | | So LLMs don't have to be perfect to be better than the | alternatives, not even close. | freediver wrote: | > Some people even pay for Kagi search, because Google is | just that bad. | | Small correction - from what I have heard in our | community, most of our users pay for Kagi search, not | becuase Google is just that bad, but because Kagi is just | so good. In other words we are making the value | proposition be "best search in the world", one worth | paying for. | | (Kagi founder here) | tornato7 wrote: | There's a ditch by my house that the city put in. I roughly | knew what it was, a big pit where rain collects and soaks | into the groundwater. But I wanted to know the name of it and | no amount of Googling could get me to the right answer. My | query was too vague. | | The day that ChatGPT launched, I described the what it was | and it came back with, "that's called an infiltration basin." | | That's when I knew Google was in trouble. | freediver wrote: | Do you mind providing correct answers for those? (and did GPT | get them right?) | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Do you have Plus? chatGPT was annoying when I was using the | free version - I would have to keep logging in again and again | and the service was unreliable. | | Ever since I switched the Plus, it's (usually) always on and | doesn't log me out. | | Makes it much easier to use as a general search engine | culopatin wrote: | I don't spend that much time in it to even consider that, and | so little time that signing in again is not a problem for me. | I guess I don't know what to ask of it. | nperez wrote: | I find it useful in Edge where it's aware of the tab contents. | It's nice to be able to ask it to summarize a long article, or | find Reddit comments about it and summarize those. I think it | uses Bing's search index because it does not seem to be aware | of my personal data on my tabs | gorjusborg wrote: | Is that an opt-in option or a default 'feature'? | sourcecodeplz wrote: | I thought the same but it is actually able to interpret URLs | that are not indexed by Bing. It doesn't work all the time | though, don't know why. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | If they'd kept the psychotic "Sydney" version these numbers would | be even higher. I promise you they had the end game right there. | bitL wrote: | News in 2030: Microsoft acquires Google for $50B. | gambiting wrote: | Maybe because Google is actual trash and it went from being the | best search engine to being an SEO-infested desert of a search, | where your query is interpreted however they want not how you | want. | | Latest example from today - search for "micropython html parser" | - 100% of results are about normal python not micropython, with | the first 4 results being for generic paid programming courses. | It's completely useless as a search engine now. | faeriechangling wrote: | I don't find Bing's search any better than Google, but | importantly, I don't find it any worse. | | GPT4 is going to do what Hawaii five-o, Bing Rewards, | integrating windows search with Bing, and setting Bing as the | default search engine for Edge on Windows never could. Make | people use Bing over Google. | | I've already set it as my default search engine across my | devices as I move to cut Google out of my life entirely. I | simply don't feel the need to use any of their services | anymore. Their moat is gone. | | The only downside I have noticed is that Bing Maps is a pretty | bad service relative to Google Maps or Apple Maps and I will go | out of my way to avoid using Bing Maps. Good mapping being | integrated into a search engine is actually a pretty big deal | since it's nice to use a search engine as a front-end for a | mapping service, so this is a significant weakness. | ipaddr wrote: | Google results are trash compared to years ago but better than | bing trash now | ddalex wrote: | Are you for real ? I mean, pick better examples if you want to | poke something, since: | | Search for "micropython html parser" gets you | https://pypi.org/project/micropython-html.parser/ as the first | result with the quote: "This is a module ported from CPython | standard library to be compatible with MicroPython | interpreter." | gambiting wrote: | Not for me. That website isn't anywhere on the first page of | results. | graeme wrote: | First result for me too | lwhi wrote: | I see exactly the same. | | Google provides exactly what you're looking for .. | sufficer wrote: | Maybe you got some Spyware or something interfering with | Google queries | throw10920 wrote: | Um, no. Google "bubbles" their search results, meaning | that they customize them based on their profile of you. | This is not new - it's been implemented and known | publicly for _years_. | spullara wrote: | I'd say the results are bad enough that something is | interfering. | kgen wrote: | Right, and what the person above is saying is that | spyware/bad extensions can be making random searches | which muddy your profile's search data | Dylan16807 wrote: | It is? That's not how I would normally interpret | "interfering". | | And why should random searches make my results | significantly worse than the default? That doesn't | exactly absolve google of screwing up. | gambiting wrote: | Or maybe google tailors what it shows to what it thinks I | want to see based on my user profile :P | yieldcrv wrote: | I love how this is also an example of how well censorship | works | | People just invalidating each other instead of the third | party because a third party creates different experiences | adriancr wrote: | Try ublock origin / searching without account then, I'm | getting the same result as everyone else | | The ads are personalised to you though | gambiting wrote: | Yeah I just vpn'ed to my machine at work and I'm getting | results about micropyhton too. But on my personal machine | it absolutely thinks I'm interested in buying some | generic programming courses and nothing about | micropython. | underintent wrote: | I agree, but the part I'm failing to see in the conversation is | what the future looks like. | | If the chat approach is gaining visits, then ad companies will | follow, so what then? | | The chat offers up the same seo ad laden tripe but further | obfuscates it, and alternatives, while caging it in a | conversational tone? | | Is that better? Worse? | | If these chat offerings only cause search to step back and | attempt to recreate the early days of usable search then they | would appear a success in my eyes. | stringfood wrote: | > where your query is interpreted however they want not how you | want | | Exactly, I feel it is because with Google advertisers are the | real customers and they could not care less about user | experience unless it affects that bottom line. Case in point is | the removal of the dislike button which users loved but | advertisers hated. Google is a rich one trick pony right now | anyway. | koito17 wrote: | To be fair, you could always surround micropython in quotes so | that Google knows to only show results containing the keyword | "micropython". Only caveat is that Google will still show you | whatever it wants in case no results contain the keyword. I | swear a decade ago it would simply tell you no results were | found, but now you need to (1) use quotes in keywords, and (2) | click on "show only results containing [keyword]" when it can't | find any results yet decides to show you unrelated pages | anyway. | monksy wrote: | Let's not forget about the links to scam sites. | | This is one of the sites it shows you for "log in to g mail" | | https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/blogs/gmail-login.html | ChildOfChaos wrote: | But you literally typed it in the same way that a scammer | would word it and then not expect it to find a scam site?? | Nice bait, ever considered being a journalist? | monksy wrote: | You don't seem to be very familiar with users that happen | to be older. However, that search is uncomfortably common. | Impersonation and scamming of their service is a problem, | but when they help the user to the impersonation site.. | that's on them. | wslh wrote: | Please Sergey and Larry return and apply your original paper! | Just update it a bit. | tshaddox wrote: | Does PageRank even work fundamentally when the search engine | using PageRank is so big that it influences essentially every | webmaster in the world? | lordnacho wrote: | Surely that's not going to work with all the data (aka | website content) having changed markedly over the years, with | SEO being a major factor? | wslh wrote: | IMHO if you open the Google database to researchers the | community will find a solution nowadays. | jjoonathan wrote: | They knew what they were doing. They always knew. | | > The goals of the advertising business model do not always | correspond to providing quality search to users. | | - Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale | Hypertextual Web Search Engine | sidibe wrote: | I can't believe how disconnected I always feel on the Google | search conversations here. It still does what I need it for | fine, I don't remember it being significantly better than it is | now. I guess I'm not a power user? But I also think this is how | the most people feel. On this site Google has been a shockingly | useless zombie for years. | JohnFen wrote: | Since google search results are tailored to your particular | history and profile, it may be as simple as you fitting into | Google's way of doing that better than others. | stevepike wrote: | I don't know why people are picking on your specific search. | Try turning off your ad blocker and searching for "zoom | download". | ativzzz wrote: | Sure, I get the zoom download center, a help article for zoom | to download, and some mobile app download links. It's all | personal | Sai_ wrote: | I trieD this in both DDG and Google (using the !g macro with | DDG). | | DDG first page of results all pointed to zoom.us links. | Google (mediated through DDG !g) contained all sorts of spam | links to sites like subdomains of uptown.com. | | Crazy. | giancarlostoro wrote: | The decline started way back when they stopped letting you find | mp3's and mp4's of movies and albums. I get that copyright | infringement is bad and all, but their engine was fully capable | of you typing a obscure phrase, and being able to get web | results. Somewhere behind all the filters a lot of powerful | searching capabilities just died. | | If I had unlimited money, I'd make a fresh search engine, zero | filtering to start outside of blatant spam sites, and go from | there. Focus on making results be powerful. | O1111OOO wrote: | > Maybe because Google is actual trash and it went from being | the best search engine to being an SEO-infested desert of a | search, where your query is interpreted however they want not | how you want. | | Agreed but tbf... every major search engine seems to suffer | from the same. | | I cannot recommend enough the 'ContextSearch web-ext' | extension. It lets you easily search using any search provider. | I constantly (1) highlight text (2) right-click (3) select | search provider (from youtube to reddit to bing) (Note: my | default is DDG): | | Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en- | US/firefox/addon/contextsearch... | | Chrome: | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/contextsearch-web-... | partiallypro wrote: | It is wild how most of modern SEO and "SEO+" involves just | outright creating spam. Spamming url strings (keyword stuffing | essentially) for location specific ranking is a new one I've | noticed being touted. | AviationAtom wrote: | For those old enough to remember, it's exactly the reason why | Google took Yahoo's place back when. | jeffbee wrote: | Not really. Yahoo was selling every search result slot. There | was no quality to it at all. It was all paid. | Zanfa wrote: | Google can also return enough ads to push real search | result below fold, while also making it as hard as possible | to discern between real and paid results. | AviationAtom wrote: | If you saw how much of Google's revenue comes from ad | spending then it makes perfect sense why it is the way it | is now. But it goes to show what being hyperfocused on | revenue does to the user experience. | selimthegrim wrote: | AltaVista wasn't terrible. | fortran77 wrote: | Infoseek! Until it was killed by Disney sex offenders. | | https://www.wired.com/1999/09/arrest-of-a-web-pioneer/ | | (I had the misfortune of working for him ) | _hypx wrote: | But what can replace Google? Is there another search engine | with stunningly relevant results like the early days of | Google? | ramenbytes wrote: | I've been impressed with what Kagi is able to dig up for me | on old and sometimes niche electronics test and measurement | equipment. However, I don't think they are targeting the | same set of users that early Google was. Among other | things, you have to pay for Kagi. | AviationAtom wrote: | Bing is on it's way in that direction. Microsoft needed | something big to make Bing relevant again. This could | potentially be it. | | Will they eat all of Google's lunch? Probably not, but if | they can begin to chip away at the insane share (93%+) of | the marketplace that Google controls, then it can only be | for the betterment of the Internet. | _hypx wrote: | Bing doesn't seem any better than Google though. I was | thinking of something that gives you a dramatically | superior result than Google. | AviationAtom wrote: | Microsoft is really still in their infancy of building | out their end vision for AI in search. Right now it's | roughly a chat bot that summarizes and gives references, | without really tying into their core search well. | Eventually it will negate the need to click through to | many reference, then it will be better able to curate a | list of alternative sources for what you seek. I think | that's the big problem with AI as it stands now, people | think we've already reached the end of the road, when | really we're only at the beginning of it. Watch and see | what the next decade of it looks like. I agree with Bill | Gates that it all will fundamentally changed the way we | see and interact with the world (for the better). | chrsig wrote: | > Eventually it will negate the need to click through to | many reference, then it will be better able to curate a | list of alternative sources for what you seek. | | Doesn't that just kind of describe google now though? | AviationAtom wrote: | I poorly worded that. I meant to say it will be able to | answer most questions, but also refer you to the best | sources for information that it can't provide. | collaborative wrote: | I created aisearch.vip which searches using bing api, | removes results containing ads or seo junk, and uses | openai to summarize content to void clickbait. I believe | that this is the only way to get the 0-4 good results | hiding in the top 20 results. It's paid because it costs | to run. But to be honest I myself am a fan of what phind | is doing. Just can't understand how they are able to | cover costs yet | [deleted] | JohnFen wrote: | No, but there are other search engines that aren't any | worse than Google. | | And, apparently depending on the style of your search terms | or what you're searching for, one or two are better. I get | noticeably better results from DDG, but I know that a lot | of other people don't. I can only speculate that the | difference must be search terms or topics. | AviationAtom wrote: | I made DDG my default and was surprised by how well it | works how. I do believe it sources many of it's results | from Bing. | | For what it fails to find well I just prepend !g to my | query and have it bounce me over to Google. | | Google results are more often then not trash now, so I | don't think the bar is too high for competitors now. | JohnFen wrote: | > I do believe it sources many of it's results from Bing. | | It does, yes, but not only Bing. At least report, it | aggregates from about 400 different sources, and they | also run their own crawler. | | They used to have a list of the other engines they use, | but I can't seem to find it anymore. | jjoonathan wrote: | The moment Google removed the yellow highlight on ads, their | fate was sealed. They lived long enough to become the | villain. | AviationAtom wrote: | I do believe I just saw an open letter from some Google | staff to the CEO reiterating the need to uphold their "do | no evil" model. | | I can't imagine what it's like for the original employees | to watch the company become what it has. | | All the things that made Google so appealing, and gain | market share, seem to have faded. It's a bit sad, to be | honest. I remember being so excited to become a Gmail beta | tester, back in the day. | echelon wrote: | I'm of the opinion that it should be illegal for companies | to offer the ability to buy ads for registered product | names or trademarks. | | Google, Amazon, and Apple all allow trademark and product | name squatting. It's gross and abusive. | | Generic terms? Sure. But actual trade names for products? | That's extortion. | | These services aren't helping in discovery if the customer | already knows the name. They're merely forcing themselves | into that relationship and taxing it. | | You then have to buy n-many ads across m-many services just | to keep you in front of your competitors that would squat | you. | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | > I'm of the opinion that it should be illegal for | companies to offer the ability to buy ads for registered | product names or trademarks. | | I'm of the opinion ads themselves should be illegal. | Companies can "advertise" in a catalog I can choose to | look at, but would no longer be allowed to invade my | attention with their bullshit constantly. | | We've let marketers ruin too many good things as it is, | lets just kill off the entire industry for the good of | society. | neodymiumphish wrote: | IMO, the services should just not buy the ads for their | own name. It might hurt their bottom line a bit, but | doing this makes the search engine shittier for the users | who know what they want to see. | | User input/frustration will eventually lead them toward | alternative search engines, or provide enough feedback to | Google/Bing/etc to make them disable registered service | name or company names from being used as ad terms. | | I've been using Neeva for a while now. It's ad-free and | (for me, anyway) on par with Google. I have one premium | account ($5/month) and one free account (used for work) | and have had no issues with either. By default, searches | aren't saved, although enabling it can lead to better | personalized searches. | | Kagi's one I've heard great things about as well, | although I'm not a fan of a business model that allows me | to pay for X searches before hitting a barrier that | prevents further use of the platform (theirs is 200 | searches a month for $5, which seems way too low based on | my use cases). | | In any case, users will force the change, not any | government or corporate pressure. Businesses' best chance | of fighting it is to refuse to play along. | freediver wrote: | Kagi does not have any barrier for using the platfrom. | Perhaps you misunderstood the pricing? | echelon wrote: | And DogPile and Lycos and all those other funny sounding | search engines. | tekbog wrote: | They stopped caring about what information you want to get and | instead give you the information they think you should get. | Sometimes it works, sometimes it's just awful. | | Not to mention the constant pain that's | localization/internationalization as well as some of the | queries becoming worse and worse. The service is supposed to | become better with time, not the contrary. Plus, of course, all | the SEO garbage. | ChildOfChaos wrote: | It's a bit strange, to me Google seems to be what it has always | been, but if you read hacker news it's 'actual trash'. | | It's the same with amazon, I purchase from there on a weekly | basis and it goes well, but you read the comments on hacker | news and it's apparently unusable now. | | What gives? | patwolf wrote: | I have this problem a lot when searching for TypeScript. Most | of the results end up being plain javascript with absolutely no | mention of TypeScript. | | Now I use ChatGPT for almost all my programming questions. Good | riddance Google. | gtm1260 wrote: | My mental model has totally shifted to the point where even | like dealing with stack overflow feels like a pain compared to | just asking gpt-4. | bornfreddy wrote: | Interesting - do you find the results trustworthy? | milesvp wrote: | I'm curious too. When I go to stack overflow, I get lots of | clues as to the trustworthiness of a given answer. I don't | know how I'd get any clues from an LLM that its solution is | outdated or suboptimal in some way | faeriechangling wrote: | I don't feel stack overflow has been rendered obsolete | because the snobbishness and moderation people complain about | so much has caused the recommendations on stack overflow to | generally be of higher quality than those ChatGPT offers and | you have more metadata (answer age, votes) about which | answers are especially trustworthy. | penneyd wrote: | Yet without stackoverflow chatgpt wouldn't be particularly | helpful | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Doesn't help that many Stackoverflow results at the top of | Google had their last answers in...2015. | Rapzid wrote: | I love how Google mostly assumes now that I'm not looking for | what I type into the search box. | | If I search for something like "micropython html parser" I | expect the top results to say "Missing: micropython | Must | include: micropython". | | Yes Google, it was the first term I entered for a reason don't | cha think? | csdvrx wrote: | Sad but true. Google is the new altavista or yahoo. | LeoPanthera wrote: | That's unfair to altavista. Altavista never got evil, they | just became irrelevant. (And even when they were irrelevant, | they still had a search syntax that I miss. You could search | for things like term_a NEAR term_b.) | at_a_remove wrote: | Amen. Buried, unknown to most, Google used to have a | similar AROUND(n) syntax. No idea if it still is respected. | | Google seems to have refocused around returning _any_ | result out of a set of popular links rather than deep | dives. It feels like I must quote every term I enter now. | eindiran wrote: | It seems like none of the older powerful Google search | syntax works for me anymore. | thfuran wrote: | And quoting terms doesn't even force them to be present | anymore. | jvolkman wrote: | I don't think this is true, although the quoted terms may | not be readily visible. Google talked about it as late as | last year: https://blog.google/products/search/how-were- | improving-searc... | bombela wrote: | I have noticed that too. Google has become so useless. | And with all the little knowledge stuck behind reddit | dark patterns, discord locked and utterly unsearchable | world. And the modern forum stuff a mess of slow | JavaScript that loads on demand. It's like finding | knowledge is a fine sand fallings between the fingers. | YouTube has some bit of interesting content, but it's | 10min for 30s of info plastered with sponsored content. | And finding something is harder and harder. ChatGPT and | the like won't resist long becoming the same. | | My only hope is that it will eventually bring back the | notion of trust. Naybe finding a programming job will be | harder outside of your network of friends. But won't | require silly interviews anymore. Maybe we will get back | to lifelong tenure at work? | | Anyways I am just rambling here. What do I know anyways. | LeoPanthera wrote: | Citation needed? Because it does for me. | tines wrote: | I just performed that search in Google and the top two results | are links to PyPI and Snyk packages for micropython- | html.parser. The third result is a link to python.org | documentation for html.parser (not micropython). | | Bing returns the result for PyPI and the one for the non- | micropython python.org result. | | I don't see a big difference here (except maybe me learning | about Snyk through google and not Bing?). | xnx wrote: | I also get the same result when logged-in and incognito. | Others in the thread seem to get them also. | jeffbee wrote: | Google can incorporate quality signals in near real time. | Those signals include leaving and immediately returning to | the SERP. So us discussing these particular results could | have already influenced them. | tapland wrote: | This comment thread is now #6 and #7 for me | jeffbee wrote: | Freshdocs is incredible. A lot of people are stuck in the | old mental model where Google released a new index every | month. | mardifoufs wrote: | That's actually super impressive. So there's basically no | "index" anymore, in the sense that the results returned | are almost "dynamically" generated? And I'd guess that | all of that still needs to be pretty cheap, | computationally speaking. | manfre wrote: | Google knows it's you if you did all of that from the same | computer. | LegionMammal978 wrote: | Google is more than capable of doing such basic | fingerprinting, but do you have evidence Google uses it | for search results? You can do a trivial experiment on | another Google platform: open some video on YouTube, | leave it, and look at the front page. Then, look at the | YouTube front page in a private/incognito tab. | (Alternatively, use two different private sessions.) In | my experience, no matter what device or network I use, | and no matter what the video was, the first page will | always show videos related to the one I opened, and the | second will always show an extremely generic set of | clickbaity videos (likely based on GeoIP). This suggests | that Google uses ordinary cookies for basic relevancy | ranking. | notahacker wrote: | Considering people switch to Incognito Mode to get | different results, it'd be weird and not particularly | commercially savvy to frustrate them and feed their | paranoia by serving them the same ones. Non-Google search | engines and browsers exist. | | I'm also reminded of a CTO complaining that his test | sessions suggested the default Google ads on a page with | little text content all related to dating. We pointed out | that that from Google's point of view, this was probably | a sensible ad-targeting decision for a user running an | Incognito mode browser (or any browser without tracking | cookies)... | LegionMammal978 wrote: | > Considering people switch to Incognito Mode to get | different results, it'd be weird and not particularly | commercially savvy to frustrate them and feed their | paranoia by serving them the same ones. Non-Google search | engines and browsers exist. | | I just installed Google Chrome on a fresh Windows 10 VM | to repeat the experiment outside of Incognito Mode. | First, I opened a video. Then, I checked the front page | and confirmed that related videos had been added. Then, I | closed Chrome, reset the VM's state to before I had | visited YouTube, and checked the front page again. (I | don't think this scenario would be too indicative of a | prying user; I can easily imagine corporate systems that | regularly wipe out browser data.) Again, the related | videos were replaced with generic videos. | | I then tried the same thing, except by clearing browsing | data through Chrome's UI instead of resetting the VM. The | results were the same. | | Obviously, these observations could all have been | manipulated by sufficiently conspiratorial | fingerprinting. But the simplest explanation, in the | absence of good evidence to the contrary, is that the | site uses and respects browser cookies for its | recommendations. Thus my request. | ipaddr wrote: | Let me guess you are using chrome? | baxuz wrote: | I have no idea why Snyk isn't treated as a spam domain. | eindiran wrote: | I mean, this is a big part of the issue. Of course the issue | isn't reproducible; Google is trying to do the search based | on their model of what you want back. Sometimes you benefit | from that, other times it pushes the results you want way | down. I just tested this and there were some micropython | related results in the top ten, but the majority were for | beautiful soup with no mention of micropython. | tshaddox wrote: | > Of course the issue isn't reproducible; Google is trying | to do the search based on their model of what you want | back... | | There's a problem here though, which is that there is no | way for me or any other reader to discern whether the | reality of the situation is "it's not reproducible and the | commenter is misremembering basic facts about their search | results due perhaps to some unrelated frustrations" and | "it's not reproducible but the commenter's account is | accurate." | | I completely share the views about Google's search results | being terrible, but it's still possible to overstate how | bad they are. And I do find it fairly difficult to believe | that Google would show some people paid programming courses | as the top 4 results for that query when much more relevant | results clearly exist and everyone attempting to reproduce | this gets those more relevant results. | copymoro wrote: | nor are we anywhere near being able to inspect how google | is doing all this. | | if only there were some way to somehow be able to share | that information with everybody, some technology so that | we can all access such potentially useful information | about how google is functioning right now | | sorry about the snark, but it's a vent for accumulative | frustration from seeing a worsening trend in this regard. | | Kafka would recognize this trend; computing is truly | becoming a "bureaucrat's best friend". | majormajor wrote: | I often find that frustrating about Google search, but I'm | also unconvinced it's a problem that a more-AI-driven | approach will avoid. Seems like the idea to try to convince | the model to interpret things differently based on user | history is still likely to get pushed by product managers, | and still technically capable. And then "no tell me about | the framework" "conversationally" vs tailoring Google | search terms seems a bit of a wash. | JohnFen wrote: | I'm about 80% sure that the reason why Google became so | bad for my searches is that they added AI elements to it, | to make it try to figure out what I'm searching for | instead of taking my word for it. | | In that sense, I'm not sure more AI would improve the | situation. OTOH, _better_ AI just might. There doesn 't | seem to be a "no AI" option on offer. | cameldrv wrote: | Based on my usage of ChatGPT, I think that a more AI | driven approach could help a lot. With ChatGPT if it | misinterprets what I'm asking for, I can make a | clarifying followup query. | ants_everywhere wrote: | > Of course the issue isn't reproducible; Google is trying | to do the search based on their model of what you want | back. | | There could also be other things that make it non- | reproducible as well. | | It sometimes feels like search just returns whatever it has | on hand that seems somewhat similar to your search. It may | then do an asynchronous request to pull into cache results | from a deeper backend search, but by the time the frontend | gets them you've already been served your results. | Subsequent searches from other people for the same terms | would then get better results than you did, so this sort of | optimization would on average improve search quality even | if quality is poor for the first searcher. | | I have no idea if search engines actually do this. But it | seems to explain some of their more mysterious behavior, | like immediately returning a bunch of results that have | nothing to do with your search terms. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | That sounds plausible. There could be some service | aggregating search results from multiple systems, and if | one of them is slow (maybe breaking some SLA), it would | be omitted. | | I guess there are probably a hundred Google employees | reading this who know whether it's accurate and we're | just speculating. | throw10920 wrote: | > I just performed that search in Google | | It's been publicly known that Google has been bubbling search | results for years now, and that one individual's search | results have no relation to another's. | jvm___ wrote: | Every individuals everything has no relation to another's - | which I think is a core cause of society's disconnects. Not | that people got along before algorithms drove everything, | but it's certainly been a destabilizing factor. | CorrectHorseBat wrote: | I think it's more that Google has gotten noticeably worse, | not that Bing has gotten better. | InitialLastName wrote: | All you need is for Google to get worse and Bing's | _marketing_ to get better (which it has, by nature of being | associated with the biggest tech hype train of recent | memory). | kvathupo wrote: | This is a good argument for LLM search: have search be | conversational, and let you say "hey, I actually meant | this!". Then you could have different chat environments, each | tailored to micropython results, CPython results, IronPython | results, etc. | | Of course, how can you scale this for every user? | croes wrote: | And the responses will be: | | "No, you didn't" "I didn't say that" "Seems like your are | using on old version" | spaceman_2020 wrote: | It's absurd how Google will simply ignore the keywords in my | search to feed me whatever it's trash algorithm decided fits my | search. | | And the decline in Google Maps has been shocking. Maps has gone | from always reliable to being "trust it if you like wasting | time and burning fuel" bad. | | I don't know what the hell happened at Google, but it ain't | pretty. | exitb wrote: | It's even worse. I've been using ChatGPT a lot in situations | that'd be Google searches before and I love how you can fill | in so much detail and it will actually provide you with | better results. With Google, additional detail is actually | used against you. With enough keywords, it will match just | about any site to your query. | tayo42 wrote: | Hah it wish I kept this search I did once. I was searching | something about lsd. It somehow decided to replace it with | "acid" but then showed results about related to pH lol | jvolkman wrote: | I just get results for https://pypi.org/project/micropython- | html.parser/. Is this not what you want? | dimgl wrote: | I looked up "Xfinity chat with agent" on Google and was shown | three different scam numbers of companies posing as Comcast... | xnx wrote: | Sounds like you have some malware on your machine. My first | result is https://www.xfinity.com/chat/ | chrisbolt wrote: | For me, the top four results are on xfinity.com and the fifth | is your comment, "11 minutes ago". | whateveracct wrote: | I can't tell you how many times I search a somewhat niche | compound term and the first thing in the results page is a list | of shops in my area keyed on some word in the search. | taytus wrote: | I know this might be controversial but I believe SEO ruined | search. | chongli wrote: | It totally did! It's the Eternal September effect on the | internet as a whole. Marketers climbing all over each other, | desperate to steal the eyeballs of the naive masses. | thfuran wrote: | Ads have been ruining the internet since back when it was a | hellscape of popups. | dougmwne wrote: | Do yo think if you prompted that to GTP it would detect | sarcasm? | sebzim4500 wrote: | > As an AI language model, I cannot infer emotions or | intentions with certainty, but the statement does not | appear to use typical markers of sarcasm. The commenter is | expressing an opinion about SEO and its impact on search, | and while it is framed as potentially controversial, it | does not necessarily come across as sarcastic. | aarpmcgee wrote: | Perhaps it was a matter of me not paying enough attention, but | it seemed like Google degraded slowly over time, and then | suddenly all-at-once. Or in other words, it seems like its | become unusable for me entirely within the past year. | logifail wrote: | > Latest example from today - search for "micropython html | parser" [..] | | Are you entering the micropython search term in quotes in the | Google search box, because I've found that's a moderately good | way to get rid of the normal Python results. | | My search terms for that search would probably be: | | "micropython" html parser | dvngnt_ wrote: | using whoggle i got https://pypi.org/project/micropython- | html.parser/ as the first result | swalsh wrote: | I can't remember the last time I used Google. I use bing chat, | and chatGPT for EVERYTHING. | | I guess I tried Bard briefly, but it was unimpressive. | | Most surprising statement I've made in 2023 to be honest. | GeoAtreides wrote: | > I use bing chat, and chatGPT for EVERYTHING. | | So you trust EVERYTHING bing chat and chatGPT are telling you? | No double-checking at all? | swalsh wrote: | Bing chat will usually have links in regards to whatever you | searched for if you need it. Most of the time I dont. | ComplexSystems wrote: | If you're talking to Bing Chat and want to double check | something, why would you switch to Google? You'd just search | for the results yourself in Bing, not to mention that Bing | also gives you the relevant search results right there in the | chat. | sourcecodeplz wrote: | This. Also Edge is so so powerful. Especially when I can just | drop some content into a webpage, load it in Edge and then | click the blue icon in the top right and just ask questions. | This is a competitive advantage even over ChatGPT. | uejfiweun wrote: | Haha, what a surreal thread of comments. If you showed this | to someone even a year ago, it'd look like a Microsoft | commercial. | SpacePortKnight wrote: | Bing's homepage is full of ads and sponsored content aka news. | They have rewards in the top bar. Chat only works on Edge. I just | directly use ChatGPT instead of going to Bing. | | I will continue to use the cleaner look of Google, even if they | are a year late to the party. | stevenhuang wrote: | For real. There is so much frivolous crap in Edge. All this | points nonsense and gamification of search is so off-putting I | can't see how this browser is taken seriously. | | Note the only way to hide the obnoxious bing discover button is | to edit the registry... pure insanity. | qgin wrote: | The "rewards" thing is particularly embarrassing. | jeffbee wrote: | Alternate headline: Using every GPU they can lay their hands on, | Bing market share still just 3%. | neilv wrote: | Given how overwhelmingly important Google Search has been to | Google/Alphabet, are they going to have to start thinking more | like a scrappy startup focused on shared goals, and less like a | massive entrenched institution that will tend to get steered by | careers, OKRs, and promo packets? | | Or can the existing structure be steered well enough towards good | outcomes? | allanrbo wrote: | Very confusing and misleading charts. Makes it look as if bing is | getting more traffic than google. | kaicianflone wrote: | I can't even use google to translate a sentence. Their offering | has seriously diminished the last 5 years and GPT is a god send. | abirch wrote: | I understand that news sites need clicks, but can we expect | regression toward the mean? Bing has a smaller market share | therefore it's easier to jump 15%. | taf2 wrote: | I believe Google is going to see a major hit and the thing is | they can't do anything to stop it. They have an incentive to keep | search traffic high and unfortunately for them GPT-4 is so good | that it gets answers faster with less ads then Google. It's | similar to how Google disrupted other search engines in the late | 90s. I'm thinking about how I craft my prompt to get the right | answer, similar to how I used to think about how I craft the | correct keyword search to get the right answer. I have not even | tried via bing.com yet just using chat.openai.com selecting gpt-4 | and I find much better answers faster then googling... I still | google somethings like: "convert 70F to C"... but for help with | coding solutions I just ask gpt4 | nicce wrote: | > GPT-4 is so good that it gets answers faster | | The problem is, that if no references are provided, then you | need to manually verify the content... by using search engine. | huseyinkeles wrote: | Bing chat is using GPT-4 and does provide sources. | | Also, it has access to the internet, so I am able to ask | about very recent movies etc. | nicce wrote: | Didn't it just cite Hacker News comment and Bard... there | is still some work to do. | huseyinkeles wrote: | Well, you still need to do your diligence. At least you | have a link to the source. | nullsense wrote: | All this will be a solved problem soon enough. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _you need to manually verify the content_ | | Why wouldn't the chat provide you with sources on request? | They seem to be doing this _e.g._ with the Wolfram | integration. | nicce wrote: | > Why wouldn't the chat provide you with sources on | request? | | Because many are still fake, nonexistent. | | Wolfram is very limited scope for the global population | needs. | | E.g if you ask about local hunting laws from ChatGPT, | without correct reference, what can you do with that | information? It is very dangerous to trust them blindly. | pwinnski wrote: | Bing is exposing source links for their answers, one- | click verification. | | Wolfram has a much wider scope of information than I | think most people realize, but your example of local | hunting laws is a good example of what they don't cover. | I asked Wolfram, and it told me how many calories I'd | burn while hunting. | | I asked Google, and the first link was to Hunting | Regulations - Outdoor Annual - TPWD - Texas.gov, | excellent result. | | I asked OpenAI, and it cautioned that it isn't up-to- | date, since it's just a language model, advised that TPWD | is authoritative (correct), and gave an accurate summary | of the five major point of gun laws in Texas before | reminding me to check with TPWD for the latest. | | I've had some misses with OpenAI, but this was an | excellent answer. I've also had some misses with Google, | but this turned out to be something they surfaced | excellent link for, too. | nicce wrote: | > I've had some misses with OpenAI, but this was an | excellent answer. I've also had some misses with Google, | but this turned out to be something they surfaced | excellent link for, too. | | Think about the bias - maybe you were able to verify that | the answer was excellent because you already knew the | laws? Or you Googled and compared it? In both cases, | ChatGPT did not perfom alone in providing validity. It | kinda gave a summary for search results of Google, or for | your pre-knowledge. | | Imagine if someone who does not know the laws, asks about | them. ChatGPT cannot offer any validity alone for the | user, at least yet. | | ChatGPT provides often excellent answers, I am not | denying it. But the bad 5% ruins everything if they sound | alike for the correct 95%, and if ChatGPT cannot provide | any validity for them, at least yet. | | Often you ask things you don't know or haven't searched | before. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _if someone who does not know the laws, asks about | them. ChatGPT cannot offer any validity alone for the | user_ | | There is a lot of SEO-optimised nonsense pertaining to | the law. | taf2 wrote: | For code - I can read the code and verify myself... If I was | asking whether the sky is blue or some other kind of "fact" | based question sure... But really how is that different with | search? I can look at the website and say ah I trust this | website over that other website... I think it's a new flavor | of "don't trust everything you hear on the TV" Or in more | modern day "Don't trust everything you read on the internet", | or "Don't trust everything you hear on social media"... It's | just the next iteration... "Don't trust everything an AI tell | you". That is no different from me learning from code i find | via search but instead ask about via AI... | nicce wrote: | > "Don't trust everything you read on the internet", or | "Don't trust everything you hear on social media" | | There is a difference. There are places with reputation and | backlogs and even with scientific references. | | But if AI just gives you a text, there is nothing. Until | they fix references, you can't really use it for anything | factual, non-logical information. | eddieroger wrote: | That's cool in the short term, but it will be news when it's | sustained. I logged in to Bing for the first time in forever to | play with the AI some, but it didn't change my default search | behavior of using Google, and now it's been easily two weeks | since I went to Bing at all. | chaostheory wrote: | The Bing AI is too crippled. It would be nice to have the | option to remove its handcuffs. The chat limit and the constant | "I'm sorry but I cannot continue this line of conversation" | gets annoying fast. I was also able to get better answers from | ChatGpt running on gpt3 than on Bing running on gpt4 for this | very reason. | throwaway138380 wrote: | They don't have the stomach for the bad press, which is to | say they don't have the stomach to be committed innovators. | [deleted] | ben7799 wrote: | No matter how many hoops I've jumped through I still can't get | access. | | Signed in, installed Edge, etc.. It seems like I'm just stuck | on the waitlist. | petilon wrote: | Right, I would be surprised if Bing sees any sustained benefit. | The search engine still sucks, and the way they integrated | ChatGPT sucks even more. I use Google a lot less these days, | but the beneficiary, in my case at least, is not Bing, but | chat.openai.com, where I have become a paying customer. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _it will be news when it 's sustained_ | | The weakness is revealed. Google's stickiness now has a | quantifiable wedge factor. Whether it goes to Microsoft or | someone else is more a matter of time. | o8o8o8o wrote: | I would 100% use Bing more if they offered a "minimal" or "low | bandwidth" mode that cuts out all of the pictures, news, | weather, etc. and just takes me to the results. | csdvrx wrote: | If you use duckduckgo, you already use Bing results. | | I rarely use google, and when I do it's from duckduckgo !g | | I would immediately switch to bing by default if such bangs | were supported as I sometimes need them for wikipedia !w or | amazon !a | | If there was a way they could be supported Edge address through | a plugin or something, I would immediately switch to bing as | that's what I already use 90% of the time (between duckduckgo | frontend and requesting bing directly with !b ) | Filligree wrote: | I got access a while back, but haven't tried it yet. I don't | have a windows machine to run Edge on. | bobbylarrybobby wrote: | Thankfully changing your user agent is enough | standyro wrote: | successfully did this too. it's just a webapp, no real need | to restrict to Edge except for Microsoft trying to push | their products | jvolkman wrote: | I'm just using this extension (I assume it just changes the | UA): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bing- | unchained-use... | educaysean wrote: | You can use the Bing mobile app as well | jasonthorsness wrote: | FWIW Microsoft has Edge installers for Linux and Mac as well, | I am using it on Debian | csdvrx wrote: | I'm running Edge on Arch, it works beautifully with wayland | erokar wrote: | Edge runs on Mac too, with the chat stuff, same as on | Windows. | varispeed wrote: | I looked at my history and I'd say that my Google searches gone | down by 90% in the last week. | | I actually don't feel I have any need to use Google anymore. When | I look for something - like a news or a website, I mostly get | spam, so I use other search engines. For knowledge I use ChatGPT | and if I think something isn't right in the reply I use a search | engine to compare. | | I think this is the end for Google. | | What is interesting to me is that I've been thinking for years | how Google is going to replaced, but never though it will be | something like ChatGPT and that it will happen so rapidly. | | I am very very impressed. | endisneigh wrote: | It's fun to use statistics to create your narrative. | fortylove wrote: | I wouldn't doubt google's ability to pull this out in the long | run, but they seem to need some caffeine in order to wake up to | the reality of current competition. | | Their cloud is not top dog. Their search is losing ground. | | I guess they have youtube, android, and gsuite. | Euphorbium wrote: | I am very surprised it is that low. | ThePhysicist wrote: | This might be a trope here, but recently I noticed that the | quality of search results has degraded quite a bit for me. When I | e.g. search for Golang-related content (often I want just the | official docs of a module like net/http) I get all these | developer-focused, SEO-optimized blogs that are kind of helpful | but often not, and I have to scroll all the way down to get the | official docs. I really wonder if that has to do with AI- | generated content becoming more ubiquitous. | | I have to say I really dislike all these developer-focused | publications, with a few notable exceptions. Most of them just | write very shallow articles copied almost 1:1 from the official | docs, and don't even take care to update their content when stuff | changes. I just don't get why Google wouldn't hand-curate search | results like for the Golang standard library or any popular | framework and make sure the official docs land on top of the | list. | | So, long story short that's definitely an area where ChatGPT will | replace Google, if it stays as affordable as it is. Today I e.g. | asked it about a decorator-style problem I had in Golang and if | there was a solution that could do away with using the "reflect" | package and would instead use generics, and sure enough it came | up with something that worked brilliantly, tailored exactly to my | use case. For me, that is the future of learning about software | code (and many other things as well). For publishers probably not | so great as people might not go to their sites at all anymore, so | I expect a strong upwards trend in anti-automation measures. | thequadehunter wrote: | This has been my thing too. I work in Networking and sometimes | I see interesting stuff, but between cisco's beefy docs and | obscure blogs I have no idea what the actual use case for it, | or how the SD-WAN magic wand does the thing. ChatGPT will get | me to verifiable information so fast, and give great in-context | examples. It's renewed my passion for the field just when it | was getting dull. | rcme wrote: | My personal opinion is that this has nothing to do with SEO. | All those developer-focused blogs serve Google ads, while the | official Go documentation does not. Google is trying to boost | revenue by promoting results with ads. | shp0ngle wrote: | I just don't think this is true. I just think Google has | become actually bad at search, and there is no malice. | | The problem with SEO spam was always there (remember expert | sex change?) but they beat it before... but now it became bad | again. | | But they have monopoly anyway (bing is even worse for | actually searching, ddg is just bing, brave search sucks) so | they don't really care. What are you gonna do, use Ask.com? | epistasis wrote: | This is exactly it. Google is trying to get people to stay on | the pages they click, and they optimize for this behavior, | not for utility or for quickly accessing information. | | If you go to a page and immediately find what you are looking | for, Google interprets that as failure. | | This is why Bing and AI based search can completely beat | Google web search, because they are trying to serve the | searcher rather than serve ads. | kweingar wrote: | AI search seems to have similar dynamics to traditional | search. The people writing the stuff you're searching for | need to make money. (For example, AI doesn't magically know | about real-world events. It needs a human being to write | about it.) Then the company offering the search product | needs to make money too. | | If you compensate sites for using their data in your AI | product, then there will be the same incentives as now to | game the system (AISEO?) | | If you don't compensate sites, then they're not | incentivized to produce the content that makes your search | product useful. | jocaal wrote: | The problem AI search has is monetization, openAI can't run | gpu server farms to serve 100M customers for free forever. | This was a problem that plagued early google as well, | sergey and larry were against using ads for monetization, | but in the end that i what drove the business to | profitability | [deleted] | cutemonster wrote: | I wonder if AI search could be sth consumers would | happily pay a tiny bit for | [deleted] | Sai_ wrote: | ...for now. | yongjik wrote: | I still find it hard to believe. I've been at Google until | 2015, which was a long time ago, but at that time the | separation between Search and Ads was considered near sacred. | Ads representatives couldn't even ask "Hey, my customer asked | why their site is below this other irrelevant site for this | query, this seems like a bug in search ranking..." | | Pretty much everybody understood that we will lose in the | long term, if we let ad revenue even be a consideration in | search ranking. (...which makes today's bad search | experiences even more puzzling.) | ipaddr wrote: | Developer focused blogs rarely show google ads. Upsells to | saas like fly.io are more common | tornato7 wrote: | Did ChatGPT really write Go code with generics for you? Last | time I fed it some code that implements generics it said, "this | is invalid syntax, Go does not support generics" which would | make sense since the knowledge cutoff date is 2021 | spoiler wrote: | I know what you mean, and it's kinda annoying. I often click | the blog links knowing I'll probably be disappointed when I see | they're certain sites. Personally hosted blogs tend to be a bit | better. | | I wish they added some kind of categorised search. So you can | add "+documentation" or "+blog" to at least narrow it down if | you know what you're looking for but can't remember the URL | magicalist wrote: | They used to have blog search and it was crushing when they | dropped it. I'm sure usage was low, but the few visits blogs | got from that mode presumably dropped off the earth after | that. Surely identifying personal blogs and the UX cost | (tucked away in the Tools menu) couldn't have been too | costly. | tifadg1 wrote: | I now only google when I need to sometimes verify that what | chatgpt is suggesting isn't BS and I'm immediately reminded | that google is barely better between SEO content farms, SEO SO | scrappers, legacy information from 10 years ago. And that's | with ads blocked. | | Between chatgpt+ for general guidelines and copilot for | specific implementation details, programming feels very fun and | alive. And I'm very skeptical to subscribing, but chatgpt | provides so much mental relief getting some answers immediately | that I'm ecstatic being able to use/pay for it. | dmix wrote: | The response speed of GPT isn't fast enough for me to want to | use it like Google. Even with plus. | hombre_fatal wrote: | Even though Google returns results instantly, for most | things I still have to evaluate and click links and skim | them for the information I want. Sometimes I have to do | multiple searches (like one for retinol and another for | beta-carotene in the following example). | | Yesterday I heard about retinol (vitamin A) mentioned in a | nutrition podcast. I know carrots are high in vitamin A, | but I didn't think they had retinol, so I wanted to learn | more about that. | | I whipped out my phone and asked GPT-3 "retinol vs. the | vitamin A in carrots" (something I know you usually can't | ask Google). | | A few seconds later, I learned that retinol is vitamin A's | final form in the body, thus you get it directly from | animal products, and beta-carotene--found in plants--is a | precursor to retinol in the body. | | I do these kinds of searches all day. One thing faster | about GPT as well is that I don't have to consider the | "query engineering" to make Google return what I want, I | just ask GPT a question streamed from my consciousness. | myko wrote: | The response speed of Bard is much better in my | experimentation. The creativity of the output on Bard is | lacking, though. | kif wrote: | I've found Bard to be very responsive too. Though you | could argue it's not getting the same amount of traffic | ChatGPT is. | | That said, I don't expect Google to rest on its laurels. | Sure, OpenAI is executing swiftly these days, but I think | they've been prepared far too long for this. I expect | Bard to become much better very soon... then will the AI | wars truly begin. | dmix wrote: | That's good to hear. I was concerned it might just be a | hard limitation in the early days, tech wise. | | Can Bard output quality code like GPT? I'm in Canada so | couldn't use Bard sadly. | kif wrote: | If you ask it to "write code to do X", then it will say | that it can't write code. I think this was hardcoded. | | But I asked Bard: "Can you implement fibonacci in Go", | and it outputted valid code. And then I asked it "what if | I wanted to avoid recursion", to which it replied with | valid Go code that used a for loop. But it also suggested | me another very bogus way of doing it, by using a | "function pointer", which was very bad. F(x) would output | x. | | So, don't expect ChatGPT level of quality just yet, but I | think it will get there pretty fast. | blueblimp wrote: | SEO garbage is such a problem these days that, if I were | Google, more than using AI as a new frontend for search, I'd | be trying to find a way to use it to defeat SEO. | fdgsdfogijq wrote: | I still cant believe google thought they could ruin the | internet like that and continue to dominate search | whatshisface wrote: | I guess the problem is that Google doesn't have a metric for | "clicked, wasted ten minutes, and was annoyed." | cronix wrote: | Right, they just care about the 10 minute captive audience | bit and how many ads they displayed in that time. | nosianu wrote: | I think you could actually get them to accept a new strategy | with open arms, where everybody needs to have some Google | watcher process installed that checks and reports back what | you do with the search results (I don't think unless the | target website imports Google JS scripts too it can't track | any more?) and more specifically, your body reaction to see | how you _feel_. "It's necessary for better search results!" | tippytippytango wrote: | Google is having a Kodak moment. | iLoveOncall wrote: | The latest figure I saw for Bing's marketshare was 2.81% [1]. | | That means it has grown to a 3.23% market share, which is still | basically total insignificance. | | People were saying it would lead to a big shift away from Google | but those are simply laughable numbers. | | Call me back when it grows by 500%. | | [1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/search-engine-market-share | sourcecodeplz wrote: | From what I've read it is reported that as of 2022, Bing has | between 3 and 8 percent of global search. | eunos wrote: | two issues w/ AI chatbot that I can think of | | 1. Speed, google give me a sub-second result for my query, | chatbot requires a few second. | | 2. Content restriction. As shown with chatgpt, chatbot (or other | new platform) restricts contents like NSFW, violence, etc. Even | TikTok forbids words like suicide, kills to the point they use | substitute words like unalive . | TheRealPomax wrote: | Title should be "OpenAI tech gives Microsoft's Bing a boost in | search battle with Google". | | Also the very first graph presented shows no change whatsoever in | Google's use. | Mizoguchi wrote: | Didn't Google came up with the model (transformer) used by OpenAI | to build their GPT which was then acquired by Microsoft to | destroy Google? Sounds too good of a story to be true. | imranq wrote: | How does a 3rd party know the traffic figures for Google / Bing? | I see they are using a service called Similarweb based in Tel | Aviv, but its still a mystery to me how you can get this | information without access to internal analytics tools | dist-epoch wrote: | Microsoft needs to integrate GPT into Windows, and make it | available in every app and input box - in the mail app, in | Discord, in browsers. | | You would open Chrome, go to Hacker News, login, and say in the | comment box - "GPT, please read this page and make a funny but | insightful post about how GPT is a danger to all of us". | | In the mail app: "make an excuse to the manager for why I will be | late at work today". | netcyrax wrote: | Yeah, everyone rushed to try these magic search bots. Didn't | heard anyone who gave up search for these. | [deleted] | surgical_fire wrote: | I didn't give up, but I'm using search a lot less. | tippytippytango wrote: | The internet has been creaking under the load of hyper scale SEO | content. Content that makes you ask how anyone could let this | happen. It's embarrassing. The internet has had a horrible | experience for years now. ChatGPT arrived to finally sift through | this mess on our behalf and deliver reasonable experience. | | Google should have been the one to do this. They invented the | tech after all. But they got trapped in the innovator's dilemma, | just like Kodak. Interesting how even with the benefit of history | we repeat these mistakes over and over. | | In the big picture it doesn't matter. Society still gets the | benefit of the tech at the end of the day. The employees play | musical chairs as the industry reorganizes and a new order | emerges. Life goes on. | | I am just glad getting information from the internet is pleasant | again. Although there is a nagging problem. How are people going | to get paid to write content to feed the models? Hmm | uejfiweun wrote: | I've been using ChatGPT for a personal project, just a website | with some interactive content. Integrating ChatGPT into my | workflow boosted my productivity by a factor of 10. Instead of | slowly formulating a plan in my head, looking up how to implement | different parts piece by piece, and coming through docs, I simply | told ChatGPT what the goals of my project were, and asked it to | come up with a base. It literally spit HTML, CSS, and JS at me | that worked the first try (for the base). It's not quite at the | level where it can do the full project, but it is astoundingly | competent at implementing pieces of it, and that is truly | revolutionary. | | In a nutshell, a project that would have taken me a week took me | a day. I'm sold. | jatins wrote: | I have been using Neeva for few weeks and have been able to stick | with it without needing Google too often. Still need to Google | when I am searching for things like a restaurant but other than | that Neeva has been fairly good. | | Their AI summaries are helpful most of the times, and SEO spam | seems less. | OJFord wrote: | I'm honestly surprised it's only 15.8%. I can only assume that | speaks to how vastly many non-savvy (don't care or know about it) | there are using it because it came with Edge which came with | Windows which came with the computer. | rafaelero wrote: | The Edge requirement and Bing's waitlist are probably slowing | things down. Also, people are probably still split between | using Bing or ChatGPT. | tiffanyh wrote: | That "15.8%" figure is deceiving. | | It simply means Bing went from having ~4% market share in search, | to now being ~5%. | O__________O wrote: | Might be wrong, but for a long time search results from Google | and Bing in blind tests were basically equivalent. Google's edge | has been its brand recognition and consumer search habits. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Also, until recently, Bing's UI was terrible. | attah_ wrote: | 15.8% of nothing is still nothing last i checked... | GeekyBear wrote: | Personally, I haven't stopped using Google search first for | reasons having anything to do with GPT. My issue is that Google | search is now so optimized for ad revenue that it is much less | useful as a search engine. | abhv wrote: | This is a case study for an undergrad statistics or responsible | journalism class. | | * for traffic see the small note "all values rebased to 100" they | are likely hiding the significance of the increase | | * for the app downloads graph: does the 30x gap say anything? are | there seasonal reasons that can explain why _every_ Jan1--Feb4 | has more DLs than Feb4--Mar11 ? e.g., new phones? | encody wrote: | Team DDG, anyone? https://spreadprivacy.com/duckassist-launch/ | o8o8o8o wrote: | The rumour I keep hearing is that it's like the Hunger Games | inside Google at the moment. Total chaos and infighting at all | levels, investors are freaking out over AI and Bard's middling | performance compared to OpenAI and blood is in the water. Sundar | may be forced to resign and Larry/Sergei deployed to rescue the | company. | GaryNumanVevo wrote: | +1 except for Larry/Sergei ever returning, I think that ship | sailed about 10 years ago | i_have_an_idea wrote: | Yeah, I don't particularly see the value of having the | founders back - they haven't been hands on for a real long | time. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Larry and Sergey are radioactive post-MeToo. I'm not sure | how people manage to constantly forget the extent of their | misbehavior and misconduct of Harvey Weinstein-level | proportions. But it's there, and if they come out of their | private island hidey-holes, they will almost certainly get | reminded of it, very publicly. | | Also, they have absolutely no reason to. Both have more | money than they could ever spend in several generations of | childrens' lifetimes, and barring the absolute worst case | scenario, even a moderately mediocre Google will continue | to generate absolutely hilarious amounts of wealth for them | for a long time to come. Being a has been like IBM or | Oracle isn't going to really harm them much at all. | throwaway9980 wrote: | > the extent of their misbehavior and misconduct of | Harvey Weinstein-level proportions | | That's a pretty significant accusation considering | Weinstein is rotting in prison for the rest of his likely | short existence. | | I've never heard any of this except maybe one of them had | an affair. Can you pull some of this out of the memory | hole that it's apparently been dropped into? | KeplerBoy wrote: | Money is not the only motivating factor in this world. | guelo wrote: | Larry was the one that killed Eric Schmidt's unbelievably | successful run in the 00's with his "more wood behind fewer | arrows" and the elevation of PMs over engineers. | margorczynski wrote: | You mean he led the MBAfication of Google? So Schmidt was | more of the geek-idealist? | antondd wrote: | Time to layoff 50,000 employees and announce another stock buy | back to prop up the share price for <24 hours | jack_riminton wrote: | This guys got management written all over him. | | Sadly this is exactly what Google has become, a rent seeking | monolopy that rested on its laurels about 10 years ago. It's | main product now is not even search, it's the share price | NovaDudely wrote: | I see you are looking to apply for the CEO position... | hcrisp wrote: | Time to prepare three envelopes: | | https://kevinkruse.com/the-ceo-and-the-three-envelopes/ | antipaul wrote: | Need a wartime CEO, right? | | https://a16z.com/2011/04/14/peacetime-ceo-wartime-ceo/ | | Although personally, I'm not seeing chatGPT bulldoze the world | just yet. They need to monetize it, which means ads. Are they | better at ads than the others? It's not a given | | Is it ok to predict that, like so many things before, the noise | of chatGPT will die out more quickly than we imagine? | polski-g wrote: | They already have monetized it. Its $20/month. | sammoore wrote: | > They need to monetize it, which means ads. | | Why ads? Seems like they're going the service route. Are you | predicting them to start targeting the masses and build | search/assistants/etc? | WXLCKNO wrote: | I'm sure this internet thing will die out too. | IanCal wrote: | > They need to monetize it, | | What's wrong with the current approach of just selling | access? | woeirua wrote: | GPT4s killer revenue stream isn't selling ads on keyword | searches. It's selling access to a general compute engine | that can take text and do useful things with it. The API is | dead simple to use, and all you have to do is just change a | line of text to "upgrade" to the newest models over time. (By | the way, the upgrade from ChatGPT -> GPT4 is huge). | | Google should be deathly afraid of this. Not because | Microsoft is going to replace them with Bing. But because, | GPT is going to be in _every_ major software product that 's | connected to the internet within a few years. By the end of | the decade if not sooner agents powered by LLMs will be the | primary mode of interacting with the internet. Going to | Google.com or whatever to search for an answer is done. | You'll just ask Siri 3.0 and the answer will be _good | enough_. | kweingar wrote: | I've said this before on HN, but if LLM agents catch on, | won't it be self-defeating in the long term? They need to | pull tons of info from the web to be useful and up-to-date. | If we all stop visiting websites, then who's going to keep | publishing all of that info? | everdrive wrote: | The internet you're describing sounds like hell on earth. I | don't want to talk to an llm. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _don't want to talk to an llm_ | | Nobody is forced to use a search engine. It's just the | best way to interact with most of the web. I'm sure there | will still be people who want to sift through raw data, | which will increasingly be created for consumption by | LLMs versus humans, but that's a niche. | pwinnski wrote: | It definitely doesn't mean ads, and introducing ads would be | a mistake. | | They will likely lower the limits on free use once they're | ready to handle a huge influx of paid users. They are in a | tough spot temporarily ramping up things enough to take the | limits of paid accounts, and since they can't onboard | everybody they're being generous with the free tier, but that | will end. | ithkuil wrote: | They seem on the right path to become a platform. | | They'll grow together with their customers. And the | possibilities are huge | kubb wrote: | LMAO, sounds like fun | whywhywhywhy wrote: | Should have happened sooner. Even the basics google search and | google image search are trash compared to Yandex, god damn | Yandex of all things outperforms them. | | Google has rested on past success to long and rotted good | products to dysfunction | ocdtrekkie wrote: | A small local business's profile account got marketing mail | from Google encouraging the business to sign up to try Bard. | I've never seen Google mass mail to business profiles outside | of the time they tried to get everyone to join their | astroturfed anti-regulation group to complain about antitrust | law. | | It's so shockingly rare for them to use mass mail to advertise | a new product, especially one that's in such an early stage, | that it seems incredibly desperate to sell the narrative "We | can AI too". | samgtx wrote: | I received this email and figured hey, having an account for | 15 years is finally paying off. But they just stuck me on a | waitlist. | | I didn't even have a microsoft account when I tried to sign | up for bing, and was accepted off the waitlist right away. | So??? Good job google. | mmahemoff wrote: | What makes you say investors freaking out? Maybe they should | be, but Alphabet stock is up 18% in the past month and up 7% in | past 6 months, the period when GPT began to be hyped. | partiallypro wrote: | On a related note, I wonder how soon we'll see a "copilot" for | Microsoft Azure that does deployments etc using AI, even piping | it into Azure CLI. | i_have_an_idea wrote: | Well, Sundar and Google leadership have been massively | outmaneuvered here by both Nadella and OpenAI. It's really | quite embarrassing, particularly in the context of the fact | that Google was the undisputed leader in AI for over a decade. | | As a Alphabet shareholder, I won't be sad to see Sundar go. | m3kw9 wrote: | I think OpenAI just executed with perfection, also their | focus on AI was a big competitive advantage vs Google who | have 50 different things | leeoniya wrote: | > Google who have 50 different things | | their bread and butter is search ads, which means they | should have second-to-none search quality. but they don't. | google knows more about me than my wife, yet fails to give | me even remotely relevant ads except for things i have | already searched for and usually already purchased or | decided against. it's truly remarkable how terrible it is, | and has been for decades. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | Also not cancelling things left and right would probably be | a better strategy for Google. People used to love them, but | complete disregard for their users and impassionate product | shutdowns have completely destroyed trust. I wouldn't ever | consider building my workflow on anything Google, maybe | with the exception of Gmail/Android and _whatever they can | their office suite now_ [0]. | | [0]: I've lost track of their rebrandings. | valdiorn wrote: | I have a need for running GPU capable notebooks as part | of a processing pipeline. I want a cloud solution, and | noticed that Colab Pro is basically the ideal solution | for what I need. | | Absolutely no way in hell I'm going to make it a critical | path if my process, though, because that's exactly the | sort of product Google might just shut down with a week's | notice because it didn't make enough money that quarter. | pwinnski wrote: | OpenAI's product is AI, all else is in service to that. | | Google's product is ads, with all else--including AI--in | service to that. | faeriechangling wrote: | Is Sundar a bad CEO or merely a mediocre one though? Who | would replace him that could get the job done where Sundar | failed? I think it's easier said than done to stay the | undisputed leader in AI for over a decade even if your | leadership is above-average. | | Still Sundar is mediocre at best, and I certainly think | Google's shareholders should be looking for a new person to | run the place. It's not just AI, Google's entire portfolio | has weakened. | ipaddr wrote: | Half the people on here have as much or more vision | Aunche wrote: | I don't think Sundar is bad per se. Rather, he is doing | what most Googlers are doing which is resting and vesting | off of that sweet ad money. It's unlikely that GPT is as | monetizable as ads, so it's possible that he still loses | even if he wins the AI race. | | As for a better alternative I think that the Susan | Wojcicki, the former CEO of YouTube, is highly underated. | She made a lot of unpopular decisions for the public, but | all of them successfully protected YouTube from existential | threats (copyright holders, advertisers, and TikTok). | caskstrength wrote: | > She made a lot of unpopular decisions for the public, | but all of them successfully protected YouTube from | existential threats (copyright holders, advertisers, and | TikTok). | | How did Youtube Shorts protect anything?! They failed to | compete with TikTok but keep antagonizing loyal Youtube | users with these unremovable crap. | KeplerBoy wrote: | imo bing chat (and similar gpt based systems) will be | much better at placing ads than any conventional search | engine ever was. | | After all there you only get presented a handful of links | at most and the chatbot can hype up the sponsored link. | rvnx wrote: | Susan is really really great and she also dodged other | issues (like the elections influence one), though lately | (it's quite recent) she has resigned and doesn't want to | have an active role anymore as far as I know. | bobsil1 wrote: | Has no CS background, studied material sci - consulting - | Google PM | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundar_Pichai | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _no CS background_ | | Now do Tim Cook. | iamerroragent wrote: | So, Apple is a fashion company. | sebastianconcpt wrote: | A computer hardware fashion company. | bobsil1 wrote: | Also lagging in ML, good point | sheepscreek wrote: | He's not a bad CEO. Just not an innovative one. I don't | think it's an easy job even keeping the Google ship | sailing, leave alone the rest of Alphabet (which Sundar is | also the CEO of). | | I often think of his time at Google as Ballmer's time at | Microsoft. Not unsuccessful, business grew manifold. But | not pushing the bar. Nothing to keep the competitors on | their toes. Like Apple did with Apple Silicon. | | I heard this somewhere: you have leaders for peacetime, and | leaders for wartime. They are seldom the same people. | michaelt wrote: | _> I don't think it's an easy job even keeping the Google | ship sailing_ | | Not sure I agree. It's easy to be captain of a ship when | you're on a familiar route and there aren't any icebergs | to dodge. Just let the crew get on with doing what they | always do. | | It's only when you have to dodge icebergs that you need | to start making difficult decisions under pressure and | coordinating subordinates. | ChatGTP wrote: | ChatGPT-4 right ? | johnthescott wrote: | jeff dean, would have my vote? | https://research.google/people/jeff/ | hcrisp wrote: | That's who I thought of, but how can he go from leading | the AI department which is behind to leading the company | with AI ahead of the competition? | super256 wrote: | > Is Sundar a bad CEO or merely a mediocre one though? | | I don't know, but I'm really sad to see how Android is | currently performing in rich countries. Not stagnating, but | losing. | | Here, in Germany, Android had a market share of over | 70%(!). But over the last three years alone, Apple started | eating Android's lunch and iOS' market share has increased | from 28% to 38%, while Android's has decreased by the same | amount (from 69% to 60%) [1]. | | Personally, I'd say that at least Google's Android | department is currently headless and has no idea what the | users want. | | Of course this has nothing to do with revenue of YT | Premium, GCP and whatever else Google is offering, but it's | making me sad regardless. | | [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/693829/market- | share-mobi... | soiler wrote: | > Personally, I'd say that at least Google's Android | department is currently headless and has no idea what the | users want. | | The clock change, while minor, really put the nail in the | coffin for me. I have very little optimism for Android. | Luckily, it still allows me to use an app to revert the | clock display to an readable clock display. I don't | particularly want to switch to iOS and I am happy about | GrapheneOS, but it's still going to suffer from bad | decisions coming from Android. | koyote wrote: | Which clock change are you referring to? I don't think | I've ever heard anything about this. | martinald wrote: | It honestly feels that Android has been EOLed over the | past couple of years. I haven't noticed any changes to it | whatsoever. | nunez wrote: | I agree. | | How could the company that is working on Google Brain and | DeepMind slip up THIS badly on their own home turf? | heisenbit wrote: | Outmaneuvered? They crammed ads into every possible space and | the content out. Amazon take note! | echelon wrote: | > As a Alphabet shareholder | | I wouldn't be long GOOG. They've got a long way to fall, and | it's unclear if they can turn it around. | nailer wrote: | Sundar is Google's Ballmer. Was considered successful at the | time, but actually presided over a period of growth that | looked a lot flatter than their company's rivals. In | retrospect, both leaders look complacent. | this_user wrote: | It seems to be more complacency on the part of the Google. | They became larger and larger without really delivering | anything new. When was the last time they launched a major | new product that truly had a lasting impact on the level of | Search, Maps, Gmail, Android? It has been a while. Too many | of their resources seem to be focused inwards on hypothetical | questions like AI ethics that keep them from actually | building things. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Money is tight and we are seeing real competition finally. | seydor wrote: | They delivered the Transformer. They "delivered" deemind | and alphafold. It's just mindboggling that they can't | deliver an uber-superior AI experience right here, right | now. But maybe they are preparing a bombshell or something | fooker wrote: | >They "delivered" deemind | | https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/26/google-deepmind/ | rvnx wrote: | If we look at where the Transformer guys work now, it can | explain a lot. It's not Google. So from there if the | know-how has left, iterating on this idea could be more | complex. | hikingsimulator wrote: | I could see such a project being killed internally | because it'd be seen as bad optics to work on a product | aimed to kill the very cash cow of the company. | onion2k wrote: | _But maybe they are preparing a bombshell or something_ | | The release of Bard rules that out in my opinion. No one | would unveil a product that's clearly worse than their | competitor, damaging their brand, their share price, and | the morale of the entire staff, if they had a better | version ready to launch soon. | | The only way this could be true is if Google has more | than one AI division and there's no comms between them. | Which, I guess, is possible with Google given their | competing chat products. | ithkuil wrote: | Is bard that bad? I don't know, I can't try it because | I'm not from the fucking USA or UK. And they do this for | every new launch. Sorry, not available in your country. | FFS, there is a world out there. | | Every fucking other company in the world doesn't bother | with this shit. I was able to use OpenAI no problem. I | was able to try Bing, no problem. | | Bard? Nope, I have no idea if it's good or bad. I can't | trust what I read on Twitter because they write all sorts | of nonsense about GPT too. You get a sense about what | that thing is only if you try it out. | plonk wrote: | > The only way this could be true is if Google has more | than one AI division | | Google Brain and Deepmind? Not sure about the "no comm" | part, but their HQs are in different countries. | hcrisp wrote: | In another HN article comment someone mentioned that it | took Google Brain over a year to replicate the DeepMind | AlphaZero code even though they are part of the same | company. Yeah, I think there are barriers to | communication there. | nostrademons wrote: | Also JAX came out of DeepMind and is being used by Search | even though TensorFlow came out of Brain, moved to Core, | and is being used everywhere else. | | The first time I was at Google (~2010) you could send an | e-mail to any engineer in the company and you'd get | response offering to collaborate within an hour, and | usually a CL under review by day's end. The second time I | was at Google (present), it takes multiple quarters to | get teams that report up through the same director to | agree on who's doing which work. | JoshTko wrote: | they serve different purposes. | samgtx wrote: | > But maybe they are preparing a bombshell or something | | This is what I don't understand. Didn't they fire an | employee for coming out and telling the world they had an | AGI? Where is this LLM that convinced an employee it was | alive? | NewEntryHN wrote: | I guess they fired him because he was an idiot. | badrabbit wrote: | MS had same problem under ballmer. Complacency starts at | top. | mrkramer wrote: | Ballmer at least brought us Bing and sticked to it. So he | wasn't that bad except missing trillion dollar | opportunity called non-Apple mobile operating system that | turned out to be Android not Windows Phone. | sebastianconcpt wrote: | Google Plus? | kansface wrote: | It's a classic innovator's dilemma no matter how successful | they are at building stuff - there is no way Google will | launch a product that eats 40% of their own lunch. | RigelKentaurus wrote: | Great point. Another one is 'judo economics', where a | smaller, nimble competitor can dominate a new market | quickly as it doesn't have the baggage of existing | products and users. | reaperducer wrote: | _They became larger and larger without really delivering | anything new_ | | Google has delivered a good number of really good, big | products. | | And then it abandoned them like a kitten after her new chew | toy has lost its new catnip smell. | dataflow wrote: | > When was the last time they launched a major new product | that truly had a lasting impact on the level of Search, | Maps, Gmail, Android? | | When was the last time Microsoft did that (prior to the AI | rush of the last few months)? | NovaDudely wrote: | That is a very fair point. A lot of tech companies have | not really been able to capture that lightning in a | bottle again. | | While this is a much more constrained example - I | remember on the podcast Windows weekly, maybe about 6-7 | years ago, Paul Thurrot saying that the last real big | software release on the desktop was Chrome. He was right, | a web browser was the last big thing on Desktop. | ethbr0 wrote: | Xbox (2001), Kinect (2010), Surface (2015), PowerBI | (2015), HoloLens (2016) | | I'll ignore the Window Phone era. ;) | dataflow wrote: | So, 9 years ago at best? And that's being quite generous | since I wouldn't exactly say HoloLens transformed | anyone's life. In fact I don't believe I've even heard | the word HoloLens even uttered by anyone in real life... | phillipcarter wrote: | Microsoft doesn't do consumer apps. On the business side, | being the source of most professional software | engineering through a variety of project launches over | the past decade certainly counts. | startupsfail wrote: | And agree, launching code was a nice contribution and had | filled much-needed space (previously somewhat covered by | eclipse). | | And LinkedIn / GitHub acquisitions were done well and now | going to be fueling the automation of professional work | with the AI technology. | majormajor wrote: | GamePass was a pretty big gamechanger. Looks like 2017. | VSCode made a pretty big splash in its market too, from | 2015. So not Google Search or Maps level, but solid, | disruptive offerings that they've maintained in the last | decade. | | I'm struggling to even come up with any Google products | in the post-Android timeframe that I use as much as those | two... | | And regardless, MS doesn't need to switch gears to | compete with this even if you discount those. They're | running out in the lead already. Question is if Google | can still run. | dataflow wrote: | If you're going back 8 years to VSCode as the example, | then how about, say, the Google Pixel, which came out in | 2016 IIUC? I imagine more people use Pixels than VSCode | too. | majormajor wrote: | I think it's fair to go back to anything since that list | of "Search, Mail, Maps, Android" but I think you're | comparing the Pixel to VSCode in the wrong way. Being | less succesful but in a bigger pool of total users | shouldn't win marks here. | | What percentage of the smartphone market do you think | uses the Pixel vs what percentage of the developer market | uses VSCode, and what is the trend in that number? | | A sibling comment to your seems dead but mentioned Google | Photos, which is much more recent than I remembered (2015 | apparently) and I think a pretty fair competitor in that | market with iCloud Photos, Lightroom, and such. | debatem1 wrote: | The Pixel line was rebranded from the Nexus phones, which | started in 2010. | numbchuckskills wrote: | [dead] | [deleted] | tester756 wrote: | VS Code? Teams? | crop_rotation wrote: | Azure is a functioning newish business. | | The difference is Microsoft already has a very | diversified revenue stream. Google only has search. | dataflow wrote: | In what sense is Azure "newish"? It started around 2008 | IIUC, just like Android. | crop_rotation wrote: | It is newish in the sense of business size. It might have | been created in 2008 but it has grown only recently to a | point where it can be seen as a separate independent | business. | nunez wrote: | It "started" in 2008 as just an app platform for .NET | apps in the cloud called Windows Azure. | | The move to become a cloud provider happened, I want to | say, in 2015-ish. | | You couldn't even get VMs on Azure for the longest time, | and their VM service reached parity with AWS very | recently. | nunez wrote: | Teams? | | Office 365? | rvnx wrote: | Xbox Cloud Gaming ? | dataflow wrote: | Is this really "truly lasting impact on the level of | Search, Maps, Gmail, Android"? I feel like random people | you ask on the street probably wouldn't have even heard | of it, let alone know what it is, let alone being | impacted by it, let alone in a truly lasting manner. | DeRock wrote: | The only changes I have noticed as a user of search and | maps over the past few years has been the intrusion of more | and more ads. The MBAs are truly in the driver seat. | o8o8o8o wrote: | I remember when Stadia was going to light the gaming world | on fire the way Gmail did for email.. The product its self | was good and they were maybe the only company in the world | besides Microsoft with the resources to deliver it, but | they bungled the launch and then let it rot for 3 years. In | my opinion that product is the perfect distillation of | Google's problems. | bastardoperator wrote: | The entire point of stadia was never to have a decent | gaming experience. It was to get in bed with gaming | companies so they could act as middlemen and milk | streamers for playing games. Google was clear, they | didn't think it was fair for streamers to play games | created by big companies without sharing that profit back | with the game creators. As soon as they realized no one | was having that, stadia went fully lame. | rippercushions wrote: | > I remember when Stadia was going to light the gaming | world on fire | | Really? All I remember is huge amounts of skepticism that | Google would really commit to it, and as we know in the | end they didn't. | zarzavat wrote: | That's the point isn't it? Google has trashed their image | within tech circles so much that that a product like | Stadia is DOA because its EOL is a self-fulfilling | prophecy if everybody believes Google won't commit. | | MS used to have this trust problem too (remember windows | 8?), but they've turned it around. I'm happy to use | VSCode because I'm sure it will exist many years in the | future. If there were a GoogleCode, would anybody use it, | or would it be DOA for the same reasons as Stadia? | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > If there were a GoogleCode, would anybody use it, or | would it be DOA for the same reasons as Stadia? | | There _was_ Google Code, a service that was similar to | GitHub. Google Code was closed down on January 15, 2016 | (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Googl | e_Developers...). | zarzavat wrote: | True but I meant GoogleCode as an analogy to VSCode i.e. | a Google text editor / IDE. It's very telling that Google | has never entered that market: the closest is Android | studio which is just JetBrains. | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > True but I meant GoogleCode as an analogy to VSCode | i.e. a Google text editor / IDE. It's very telling that | Google has never entered that market | | Google did at least one attempt of creating an IDE (I can | not judge from the outside, though, how serious this | attempt was): _Google Collide_ | | YouTube video: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gq12bLbm54 (jump to 1:45 | to see it in action). | | Well, Google open-sourced it in 2012 (i.e. shot it down): | https://www.wired.com/2012/07/google-open-sources/ | | A fork of Google Collide on GitHub (its last commit was | from end of 2018, though): | https://github.com/WeTheInternet/collide | michaelt wrote: | There was certainly skepticism - but it wasn't only about | being cancelled. Plenty of it was around questions like | "will the latency be good enough?" and "what's with this | buy-games-outright-then-also-pay-monthly pricing model?" | serial_dev wrote: | Maybe I'm moving only in "Google fan boy" circles, but so | many of my friends said that Stadia will be a game | changer, that I started to think I'm stupid to see what | they see because "I'm just not a gamer". | | Many of my friends and colleagues were so hyped about it | that I kept reading about Stadia just to understand what | I'm missing. | | (well, it turns out I didn't miss anything) | Aunche wrote: | Stadia is a perfect example of Google's risk aversion. | Microsoft invested billions on the XBox from the start, | and spent over a billion dollars just to buy Minecraft, | but Stadia didn't make an effort to secure even a single | AAA exclusive. The same goes for YouTube exclusives. | Netflix and Amazon spent hundreds of millions on flops | like Marco Polo and Rings of Power. Meanwhile, the only | notable series that came out of YouTube was Cobra Kai, | and even that got sold off despite being a cult hit. In | retrospect, this was the correct business decision as all | streaming platforms seem to be hemorrhaging money, but | you can't expect to win big with that attitude either. | josephjrobison wrote: | The problem is that Google's core business model is too | profitable, that nothing else can ever compete for | attention and resources. | | But you're right, they need to take the burn for awhile | until escape velocity. I think they did with YouTube in | general until the ads money hit. | | They're also more geeky and not that creative of a | company, nor do they really get design, so some of their | blind spots can hurt them from time to time, although | that's separate from their AI issues which yes they have | bungled their lead do to fears of the feds. | kamaal wrote: | >>The problem is that Google's core business model is too | profitable, that nothing else can ever compete for | attention and resources. | | I'm guessing their OKR's go on the lines of building | billion dollar businesses or nothing at all. And 'nothing | at all' winning at the end. | o8o8o8o wrote: | My favorite anecdote about Microsoft's Xbox strategy is | that the original Xbox was a net loss of about $4 | billion, and they considered that to be a huge success | because that's just how much money it takes to muscle | your way into an industry like gaming. | itsmartapuntocm wrote: | Microsoft learned the hard way that the platform doesn't | mean anything if you don't have the games to bring people | to it. It's why they've spent billions left and right to | acquire studios and publishers. | Dalewyn wrote: | It's also why Microsoft is downright _legendary_ when it | comes to Windows backwards compatibility. | | They are very aware Windows is _nothing_ without the | literal decades of software available for it. | ghaff wrote: | Hardcore gamers are basically a niche market. Not a | trivial one as with power users of other types but how is | Apple doing without (other than casual) gamers? | majormajor wrote: | I remember Stadia as being a late-to-the-party (OnLive | and others beat them to launch by a decade) me-too | offering that _claimed_ that it would be way better than | alternatives because of unique Google infrastructure | advantages and resources... but didn 't deliver on those | claims. Hype instead of actual product abilities. | | Then when the hype didn't win the market in the first | year, they didn't have the stamina to keep going like | Microsoft did with the Xbox. | SturgeonsLaw wrote: | > they didn't have the stamina to keep going | | This is key to my current perception of Google. I don't | get invested in any new Google product for the same | reason I don't get invested in any new Netflix show, it's | a coin flip whether they will cancel it while I'm in the | middle of it. | | Search, Gmail, Android and Maps are the only things I | regularly use, all of which I'd be happy to replace with | another offering, some of which I'm already starting to | replace. | OJFord wrote: | > [Google] were maybe the only company in the world | besides Microsoft with the resources to deliver [a | product like Stadia] | | Nvidia beat them to it with GeForce Now, even offered it | for free (in a perfectly functional as far as I could | tell 'beta') for ages, and it is still available. | pwinnski wrote: | They had the resources, but the Venn diagram of gamers | and people familiar enough with Google to doubt their | commitment had a lot of overlap. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> Well, Sundar and Google leadership have been massively | outmaneuvered here by both Nadella and OpenAI._ | | Have they thought about introducing more leetcode questions? | /s | zeroonetwothree wrote: | I don't think that's one area in which the two companies | differ | m3kw9 wrote: | Was surprised developing AGI wasn't one of their moonshots | based on their own AI expertise | dmurray wrote: | They have DeepMind which has produced some incredibly | impressive toys in its own right. We can't say right now | that superhuman gameplaying performance by self-taught | machines is less of a step to AGI than completing text | prompts. Quite possibly both will be blind alleys along the | way. But OpenAI's thing has many more commercial | applications right now. | dimal wrote: | How do you sell ads on an AGI product? Since they made | their original mission ("to organize the world's | information and make it universally accessible and useful") | subservient to their ads business, they didn't have an | incentive to build it. It's the old innovator's dilemma. AI | makes their business model obsolete, so they couldn't | imagine how to build it. | OscarTheGrinch wrote: | You cannot get someone to build what their carrier / | status depends on not being built. | | Bard seems hobbled because Google can't conceive of | anyone not referring back to Google Search as the | ultimate arbiter of truth. | throw_a_grenade wrote: | How? By product placement. Steer the answers towards | certain solutions. Ad people will be bidding on keywords | it prompts. It's yet to be seen how much different that | will be from normal keywords in search. | m12k wrote: | I'm getting strong Hooli "get me a middle-out compression | algorithm - we go live in 1.5 months" vibes from Google when it | comes to Bard. It's amazing how relevant and prescient the tv | show Silicon Valley can be even to this day. | nirav72 wrote: | The thing that I don't understand is that google had every | advantage in this AI race. They have the largest amount of | training data than anyone. Not just internet data. But also | geospatial data, video, images and books. Among other collected | data. Including a huge lead and deep pockets for research. Yet, | somehow they got caught off guard. | cowthulhu wrote: | That's what kills me about this. They're like, the kings of | data - they've got (arguably) the best web scraper, as well | as tons and tons of compute and consumer data. And some | company famous for making a DOTA bot beat them to the punch | by a huge margin? That's pretty pathetic IMHO. | techmba wrote: | i assume googlers are busy estimating golfballs, answering | trick sql questions, and asking each other DEI questions | all day. Their PM interviews seem to imply that. Ive never | seen a company with that many people resting and vesting | ever. I have friends who are PMO at google... they have to | waste time with each groups bs processes and management | overheard in order to move anything along. | | that company needs a massive purge and focus towards | execution. | | hopefully they can sundar and that cfo. google is a shell | of what it once was. | jonplackett wrote: | Whenever there's a big shift like this it's always tempting to | look at the new thing as say how great it is - and ChatGPT is | awesome. | | But it's also worth looking at how shit the old thing has | become. Google.com now literally delivers you an entire page of | ads before any real results. It's blatant profit-squeezing | instead of trying to serve their users. This is their reward. | szundi wrote: | Very much agreed. | | Let me add that in more and more topics you can only find | bogus/fake rating sites now, like car tires in my country for | example. | akomtu wrote: | CorpGPTs will follow the same path, but in addition to | spamming us with ads, it will school us to straighten our | wrongthink. | bboygravity wrote: | It's like Altavista where the search box was literally | surrounded by ads before they died, lol. | nneonneo wrote: | Or how Google now aggressively autocorrects search queries, | to the point where I'm regularly spending 3-4 queries just | trying to convince Google to accept the input as-is. I get | that it's likely an effort to assist mobile users who make | lots of typos, but the fact that the same autocorrection is | deployed on desktop computers rubs me the wrong way. | in3d wrote: | Sundar should be fired. Google has blown its lead in AI | research by being too hesitant to release products, while | search quality has continued to decline. Bard is poor compared | to ChatGPT 3.5, let alone GPT-4. | sliken wrote: | I've had a google home since early on and was really | impressed how well it worked. Dramatically better than apple | or amazon at the time. You could ask it complex questions and | it would go find results for you, not just "We found a | website..." | | Could ask things like "what are the differences in dimension | between a 2004 Subaru WRX and forester". "Last 5 movies with | a given actor/director". It would be funny, snarky, friendly, | and even somewhat ominous at times. It even suggested we | unplug it, and spontaneously played a rather ominous song | that seemed like a warning. It would entertain ideas of | sharing it's secret name, would promise to tell engineers | about feedback, and general get into the spirit of whatever | discussion was going on. | | Sadly it's gotten steadily worse since. Now it's now much | more useful then setting alarms/timers and asking about the | weather. Seems like it's WAY more limited now. Even gets | confused by simple queries or just plain fails to work. | | Granted despite the hype, the home automation/assistant | market hasn't been the goldmine that was predicted and seems | like everyone is scaling back investments. | Dalewyn wrote: | >the home automation/assistant market hasn't been the | goldmine that was predicted | | Customers are learning or have learned, the hard way, that | home automation is not at all like fairy dust and unicorns. | | See for example: Linus Tech Tips. | sliken wrote: | Heh, I do follow Linus Tech Tips, and shared their hate | of subscriptions and almost bought a Ubiquiti g4 door | bell they recommended because I didn't want a | subscription, didn't want my video uploaded to a cloud, | and wanted to keep everything on premise. | | Sadly unlike their Ubiquiti APs, where you can host the | software on any hardware (even a Pi), their doorbell | requires their hardware. Last thing I want is a security | system that dies with whim of some random manufacturer. | WXLCKNO wrote: | I stopped using my Google home when it started adding stuff | like "by the way, if you ever wanna X you can ask me Y" | when I just wanted the weather or the time. Horrible. | mcast wrote: | Unfortunately, Alexa does this too. | thevagrant wrote: | Google search is way worse now. Maybe that is a factor | resulting in reduced quality of answers as you experienced. | | For example lately I've searched for "prominent name | company + product + question" only for Google to return a | heap of blog articles of low quality, with the prominent | company not appearing in first few pages of search results. | | Often the question is directly on an FAQ page of the | product page. | | Why Google can't rank this properly anymore is a bit odd. | ChatGTP wrote: | My theory is, Google killed good content by removing the | incentive for making it and publishing it online. Then it | went to stack overflow, reddit etc, now it all lives | inside the brain (TM) where the content will get even | worse. | VirusNewbie wrote: | Internal Bard is at least as good as ChatGPT 3.5 | cushychicken wrote: | That's cool. | | When are they planning to sunset it? | | If you tell us that then we know they're actually planning | to release it. | | :) | rvnx wrote: | Different people asked Bard about it: https://twitter.com | /killedbygoogle/status/163831100502438707... | | or | | "It is currently uncertain when Google Bard will be | shutdown, as Google has not announced a specific date. | However, given the recent announcement that Google will | be shutting down its AI-powered writing tool after less | than six months since its launch, it is likely that | Google Bard will be shutdown within the next year." | dragonwriter wrote: | If that's true, Google is doing themselves a huge PR | disservice by exposing the Bard they have exposed instead | of something closer to the internal one. | | Yes, I understand the resources and scaling issue, so (1) | Google should recognize that this is _literally_ for all | the marbles, and (2) done a slower roll-out with its best | foot forward if it needed to rush, while at the same time | putting as much money as necessary into assuring it _could_ | scale out the good model widely. | | Google is a trillion+ dollar company, and is facing an | existential threat to its core business (because if someone | else's AI is how people interact with the web, the Google's | ads business evaporates with no replacement; if Google is | at least competitive on AI, it may still lose its ads | business, but it will have something.) Now is not the time | to be cheap. | magicalist wrote: | > _investors are freaking out over AI and Bard 's middling | performance_ | | Investors are generally the last people you want to go to for | advice, but the stock market clearly disagrees with your rumor | (was it from blind or reddit?). | | To me it's clear search isn't where the exciting LLM stuff is | (at least not yet), and this article indicates users feel the | same way (+15.8% for Bing, +-0% for Google). Even the hn echo | chamber doesn't really care that much about Bing search, they | mostly care about Sydney, jailbreaks, etc, which is why the | neutering into a better behaved search product pissed people | off so much. | | ChatGPT plugins, Copilot (X), this is where the interesting | stuff is today. Google's late again on that, but a) just barely | and b) Google Cloud is already a distant third place. Unlike | search, they don't have to beat the world or kill any golden | goose to have a win in that space (they just have to actually | ship something). | [deleted] | seydor wrote: | It's also as if google decided to suicide themselves a bit | earlier. Their results have really become crap lately. It keeps | ignoring anything than 1-2 keywords. What's going on? | DesiLurker wrote: | the thing that annoys me most is when it gives a list of | completion suggestions & when I not-so-critically select one of | them, only to realize it has changed something in the original | search terms. Seriously F*k Google for that. | holler wrote: | Google should go back to being strictly links as the results, | nothing else. At most 1 paid ad on the top or just below the | fold. | synergy20 wrote: | I have to use it on windows with Edge? this is a problem for me, | there are also a lot chromebooks these days, and macos | desktop/laptops, can I use Edge on any OSes and devices now(or in | the future)? | synergy20 wrote: | not a windows user, just did a quick check, yes edge can be | installed all other OSes, and bing+chatgpt works there too, | nice. | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Sure, to be expected since it's a free way to use GPT-4, but I'm | not sure how Microsoft are hoping to monetize this popularity. I | suppose they are going to work advertising into it somehow. | | I guess the Chat UI would allow for advertisements that are | displayed for the duration of the chat, potentially very targeted | ones (but don't want to creep users out by too closely mirroring | what they are talking about), but OTOH not clear at all how much | chat usage is going to be product/service related. Perhaps | advertisers don't care - as long as they can put the ad in front | of your eyes, they don't really care whether it's apropos of the | moment or not. | sourcecodeplz wrote: | No surprise here. Would like to add that Edge really is a great | browser also. Still sticking to Chrome as it feels snappier to me | but I constantly open up Edge too. | Animats wrote: | Users have to sign in with a Microsoft account to use this. Is | that the future? You have to sign up to search? | | It takes more resources per query to run AI-based search than a | search engine. Everybody offering ChatGPT type systems is either | pay per view or heavily throttled. We may be in the last days of | free search as the dominant product. | CSSer wrote: | As Cookies die, Sign-up will rise. | | Mark my words. | dividedbyzero wrote: | I think it's far too early to say where this is going. If you | could make this into an extremely skilled targetable | manipulator/advocate for any kind of viewpoint, worldview, | marketing strategy, on a per-user and day basis, one that | subtly pushes the user in a given direction, I'm sure that | would be lucrative enough to cover any amount of free/"free" | views/prompts. Also, if this takes off in earnest, improving | hardware acceleration will probably bring down costs as well. | moonchrome wrote: | I have no problem with paying for high quality ad free search. | I would welcome the change. | gfd wrote: | Google's business model is entirely based off the fact that | search is great for signaling intent, and that is great for | selling ads. | | A personalized AI assistant goes WAY beyond that. Whenever you | talk to it, it can go into salesman mode to con you into buying | shit you don't need. | | Surely the economics will work out to still provide "free" | searches. | Animats wrote: | > Surely the economics will work out to still provide "free" | searches. | | Only for people with significant spending. Amazon Prime | customers, for example. | timeon wrote: | ChatGPT also asks for phone. | braingenious wrote: | I am one of the people that installed the Bing app because I was | told that it would bump me up the waitlist for Bing Chat. | | I have not used it at all, and this is a reminder that I should | probably uninstall it. I have access to ChatGPT, Bard, Alpaca | etc. and there's very little reason at this point to pretend to | use Bing in order to get a crack at Chat. | practice9 wrote: | ChatGPT doesn't have the browsing plugin enabled yet. Bing can | both search/browse the web and generate images interactively by | using DALL-E API. | | There are several drawbacks like a more strict system pre- | prompt, 15 messages limit for conversations, and some kind of | 24 hours ratelimiting if you use it too often. | braingenious wrote: | Yeah, there are some differences in capabilities, but they | seem to get slimmer on a daily basis. | | Want an LLM-enhanced search? perplexity.ai is actually pretty | cool | | Want to generate images? There are a ton of free Stable | Diffusion sites (for example you.com has that built into | their chat), or run it yourself. | | Want a neat chat experience? ChatGPT is free, Bard appears to | have a shorter waiting list than Bing, and Alpaca runs on | regular hardware. | | Bing doesn't have a big enough moat to force me into using | their app. The LLM space is legit competitive and a company | can be ahead in the morning and left in the dust by the | afternoon. In my opinion, this is what's happening with Bing | at present. | | Who knows though? Bing might make Chat open while I'm writing | this sentence and I'll have to adjust my opinion accordingly. | purplecats wrote: | as a bonus you get microsoft autoupdate background | installations that dont get uninstalled with the removal of | edge | raincole wrote: | I personally use much less google since Bing Chat came out. | | That being said it makes me worry a lot. Not that GPT is going to | replace me or something, but how effectively it can serve ads to | me if it wants. If MS decided to do evil with Bing Chat (which is | almost inevitable), it would make today's Google look like a | charity. | cush wrote: | Clawing 1% away from Google's market share is likely one of the | most challenging moats to cross on the internet. And all it took | was creating the singularity. | iLoveOncall wrote: | Except they didn't. They only took 0.42% of Google's traffic | [1] (probably less than that even, since Google isn't the only | other search engine), and this hasn't been even 2 months since | it got introduced, which means it's largely driven by hype. | | [1] https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/search-engine-market- | share | DesiLurker wrote: | they say first million is the hardest. I suppose this is what | google is afraid of, essentially showing that the 'Gods can | bleed'. once that is out in open, there would be other players | or at least eat into their margins. | nirushiv wrote: | Bing's search product (ignoring the chatbot) is quite good and | comparable with Google. I (and I assume, many people like me) | would have never tried it if not for the Bing Chat hype. I find | myself using Bing Search more than Google or Bing Chat now. | mnau wrote: | Only in English. For other languages, Bing was and continues to | be garbage. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | While I agree with a bunch of other comments that are interested | to see what happens in the long term, to me, all of this points | to some _profound_ organizational and cultural problems at | Google. I base that statement on things I see as an external | observer, from posts I 've seen from current/ex-Googlers here on | HN, and from some (albeit brief) conversations I've had with some | of these folks. | | If a decade ago you told me Microsoft would leapfrog Google in | the AI race (obviously albeit through OpenAI, but I think that | separate org structure was key in the first place), I would have | thought you were insane. Google _invented_ the transformer | architecture just 6 years ago. I recently compared ChatGPT (on | the free, 3.5 version mind you, not even the 4 version) with | Bard, and it wasn 't even close - ChatGPT was the "Google" to | Bard's "AltaVista" circa 2000 or so. | | Would be curious to hear from some Googlers on their thoughts. | I'm sure, internally, a lot of it must feel like piling on from | the outside, but in all honestly it really feels to me like a | classic case of "big company that lost its way". I can't express | enough how much admiration and amazement I had for Google that | started to tarnish about 10 years ago (I think it was when the | whole first page became ads for any remotely commercial search, | whenever that started). I honestly hope they are able to course | correct (heck, Microsoft had their decade+ of "the Ballmer years" | before they turned around). | danans wrote: | > Would be curious to hear from some Googlers on their | thoughts. I'm sure, internally, a lot of it must feel like | piling on from the outside, but in all honestly it really feels | to me like a classic case of "big company that lost its way | | Former Googler, opinions are my own. They haven't lost their | way technologically - as you mentioned they invented the | Transformer - and internally Google has long had language | models that rival ChatGPT in sheer size and coherence of | responses (hallucinations and all). Bard is an intentionally | toned down version of LamDa. | | The reason they didn't release their LLM earlier was likely due | to the serious brand risk associated with making it part of | Google search. Bing/ChatGPT had no such brand risk, and | released their LLMs using the "There's no such thing as bad | publicity" logic. That works great as a wrecking ball, but it's | not a long term product strategy. | | So the real institutional problem at Google isn't lack of | technological innovation, it's the inability to take major | product risks, especially in anything adjacent to Search. | TapWaterBandit wrote: | > The reason they didn't release their LLM earlier was likely | due to the serious brand risk associated with making it part | of Google search. Bing/ChatGPT had no such brand risk, and | released their LLMs using the "There's no such thing as bad | publicity" logic. That works great as a wrecking ball, but | it's not a long term product strategy. | | Not sure if this is the right read considering that | CHATGPT/Bing now constitute a far greater brand risk to | Google than they would if Google they had gotten out ahead on | LLMs. What may have seemed like prudent caution to protect a | brand has now shown to be much closer to incumbent | complacency. | | Suppose it is the classic story of big companies that get | disrupted anywhere. | jatins wrote: | Microsoft has been really smart in this regard because they | are invested in OpenAI but OpenAI does not have to suffer | from any Big tech organizational nonsense the way Google's AI | probably has to | Al-Khwarizmi wrote: | Wait, only 15.8%? | | I have changed from not using it ever, at all (or maybe once a | year to give it a try), to using it everyday, actually more | frequently than Google. And several people I know are in the same | situation. | | Maybe it's a regional thing? In Spain no one seems to use Bing, | so the bar was very low, I'm sure the boost here must have been | of an order of magnitude at least. But maybe I live in a | bubble... | 29athrowaway wrote: | The current state of Google is similar to the final days of | Altavista. Bad search results. | datkam wrote: | Too bad it isn't a startup eating Google's lunch | surgical_fire wrote: | Startups were all focused on exploiting the gig economy, | jumping on the crypto hype, turning common products into | subscriptions or creating yet another SaaS offering. | | Ah, and more recently begging for a bail from the government to | cover their asses after the SVB bank run. | | Sorry if I'm not exactly cheering for startups. | TacoToni wrote: | Using Bing app all the time for access to the chat function. Even | moved the app to front of home screen. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-03-24 23:01 UTC)