• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Counter point: we had good search results a decade ago and Google voluntarily eroded their product quality for a pittance of extra ad revenue.

    Having a decent search engine is achievable and we don’t need to shoehorn AI into fucking everything.

    • GissaMittJobb
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I don’t disagree, but for obvious reasons, we can’t access Google from a decade ago, since they’ve made it unavailable.

      I’m not really describing an ideal state, this is a mere matter of practicality.

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Unfortunately the spam arms race has destroyed any chance of search going back to the good ole days. SEO and AI content farms means we’ll need a whole new system to categorize webpages, as well as filter out human sounding but low effort spam.

      Point being, it’s no longer enough to find a page that’s relevant to the topic, it has to be relevant and actually deliver information, which currently the only feasible tech that can differentiate those is LLMs.

      • jnk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        It would be interesting tho to use a LLM to spot AI/SEO crap and add whole domains to a search blacklist. In that case we wouldn’t need AI to do the actual search, and this could easily just be a database for end users by the SE’s side (kinda like explicit content filters).

        I’d call that option “Bullspam filter” and leave it on “moderate” by default.