• woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    As I understand it, this is only about using search results for summaries. If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK. What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation (=write me a story about topic XY).

    • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I’m afraid. It’s just a matter of time with Google.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I’m afraid. It’s just a matter of time with Google.

        If that will actually be the case and passes legal challenges, basically all copyright can be abolished which would definitively have some upsides but also downsides. All those video game ROM decompilation projects would be suddenly in the clear, as those are new source code computer-generated from copyrighted binary code, so not really different from a AI generated image based on a copyrighted image used as training data. We could also ask Gemini write a full-length retelling of Harry Potter and just search, replace all trademarked names, and sell that shit. Evil companies could train an AI on GNU/Linux source codes and tell it to write an operating system. Clearly derived work from GPL code but without any copyright to speak of, all that generated code could be legally closed. I don’t like that.

    • elrik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK.

      No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

      What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation.

      This has already happened and continues to happen.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

        That was the argument with the text snippets from news sources. Publishers successfully lobbied for laws to be passed in many countries that required search engine operators to pay fees. It backfired when Google removed the snippets from news sources that demanded fees from Google. Their visitors dropped by a massive amount, 90% or so, because those results were less attractive to Google users to click on than the nicer results with a snippet and a thumbnail. So “No one will click on the source” has already been disproven 10 or so years ago when the snippet issue was current. All those publishers have entered a free of charge licensing agreement with Google and the laws are still in place. So Google is fine, upstart search engines are not because those cannot pressure the publishers into free deals.

        This has already happened and continues to happen.

        With Gemini?

        • elrik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It’s minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn’t require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.

          With Gemini?

          Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The context is not the same.

            It’s not the same but it’s similar enough when, as the article states, it is solely about short summaries. The article may be wrong, Google may be outright lying, maybe, maybe, maybe.

            Google, as by far the web’s largest ad provider, has a business incentive to direct users towards the web sites, so the website operators have to pay Google money. Maybe I’m missing something but I just don’t see the business sense in Google not doing that and so far I don’t see anything approximating convincing arguments.

            Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

            Licensed and public domain content, of which there is plenty, maybe even content specifically created by Google to train the data. “the Gemini model understands language” in itself hardly is proof of any wrongdoing. I don’t claim to have perfect knowledge or memory, so it’s certainly possible that I missed more specific evidence but “the Gemini model understands language” by itself definitively is not.

        • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Look at you, changing my mind with your logicking ways. I think information should be free anyway, but I thought media companies were being at least remotely genuine about the impact here. Forgot that lobbyists be lobbying and that Google wouldn’t have let them win if it didn’t benefit them.

  • msage@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    Please understand that this is the next ‘SEO’ shit.

    It was going to be this from the very start.

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    We’re at a point where not only should the Internet be classified as a utility, so should Search.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah, it’s not just e.g. water that is the utility, pipes and pumping stations are part of it. Otherwise you have water…uh…somewhere, go get it yourself.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ddg are shit too, search a name and they will relate it you locally even if you turn off regional results.

      Click a link and go back to results and they have changed.

      Ddg is enshittifying.

    • exanime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I found ecosia faster and better results. Just letting you know in case you want to try

            • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Just looked it up to confirm. From DuckDuckGo’s page on the topic:

              Most of our search result pages feature one or more Instant Answers. To deliver Instant Answers on specific topics, DuckDuckGo leverages many sources, including specialized sources like Sportradar and crowd-sourced sites like Wikipedia. We also maintain our own crawler (DuckDuckBot) and many indexes to support our results. Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search results too, which we largely source from Bing. Our focus is synthesizing all these sources to create a superior search experience.

              Edit: That said, I’d rather use DDG than Bing because DDG eats Bing’s tracking for me, as I understand it.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh look, more anticompetitive shenanigans.

    Break Google up. Bring the full force of antitrust down on them.

    Anything else is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.

    • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s definitely better…but. Thanks to Google SEO the internet it’s bringing you results from is still filled with shit

    • WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Same! I swore I wouldn’t pay for a search engine, but I feel like it’s absolutely worth it, considering the current state of things.

      • TrumpetX@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I might be wrong, but they meta-search across multiple providers, including their own. The real benefit is that YOU can choose which search subjects to prioritize when trying to find something specific.

        For normal search stuff, this feels like “old Google” (no ai spam). For detailed searching, its better than any other engine I’ve used.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Part 5 is where I don’t see this actually going.

      Look at twitter. Now look at mastodon. Tell me which one is more shitty. Now tell me which one has something like 85% of the market, and which one most people haven’t heard of.

      Just because something it better, doesn’t mean people use it. You can fit all of Lemmy in the world in one of the larger NBA size arenas. You can’t even fit twitters total user base into some smaller CITIES.

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

        I think the amount of people who are familiar with search engine options besides Google is quite a bit larger than the population of Lemmy. (It fuckin better be, anyway)

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            At least in the UK there is now lots of mainstream discussion of “Is it time for people to leave twitter as it’s too much of a cesspool”. Granted they usually then mention threads or bluesky as an alternative not mastodon, but it is definitely possible for social media companies to die out. Once people start to leave in large numbers it can become a mass exodus (see digg and myspace).

            • Balder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I think the issue now is that the market got fragmented and now you can’t find as much content as before without using multiple services, which is an annoyance.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            He’s now suing advertisers to force them to pay him money because he told them (literal quote) to go fuck them selves after they didn’t wanted to have their ads shown next to neo Nazis, and well, they all left. Good luck with that, forcing advertisers to come back, lol.

            Twitter is barely having any income and the interest in the loans to buy twitter alone cost a billion per year.

            Twitter (and I fucking refuse to call it x) will be gone soon

        • hobovision@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          He’s already owned it for nearly two years. I’d definitely take the over on that bet. I just don’t see what Twitter could possibly do that they haven’t done already to kill it?

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            This last “let’s sue advertisers to force them to come back a d put their ads next to neo Nazis” is just another nail in the coffin.

            Hell Be gone soon enough and his legacy will be “what did anyone ever see in that scammer?”

    • InFerNo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago
      1. Say no
      2. You don’t show up in Google search results
      3. You still show up in other search results
      4. Google is no longer bringing the best results
      5. People stop using your site
      6. You lose
      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 months ago

        I stopped using them months ago. I only notice when I’m looking for places (e.g., restaurants, barbers).

        I’m not unhappy but may still shop around.

        • Pixel@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          yeah, I appreciate the push towards more privacy-centric search engines but as a result searches that are relevant to me geographically on places like startpage are next to useless. I understand why but I wish that local results were a bit better on the alternatives.

      • doctortran@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        We all keep saying this but can anybody point me to which one is better?

        I invariably end up having to go back to them because the other search engines all have their own problems.

        The issue is the internet is polluted with SEO and all the useful things that used to be spread out are now condensed onto places like Reddit, or places that aren’t even being indexed.

        • MagicShel@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          Supposedly there’s a paid one that is good. I haven’t tried. The thing is Google is completely enshittified. They don’t have to care about you or the sites you search. So my theory is Bing is better because they are hungrier and anything that takes away market share from Google is good—but I’m fully aware that Microsoft was just as shitty as Google and will be again if they get back on top.

          Everything else I know of is either just an alternate front end for one of them or an aggregator of both. So you’re right, there’s precious little alternative to Google. But it’s almost bad enough I’m ready for the return of web rings of good sites vouching for each other.

            • MagicShel@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If that was what you took from my post, give it another read. I’m not pro MS. I’m pro not feeding Google. And Bing is fine.

              • bitwaba@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’m not pro MS. I’m pro not feeding Google.

                I feel like this is similar to arguing that Exxon is bad so it’s better to buy gas from BP.

                Both are shitty options.

                • MagicShel@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Thankfully there are other options because you just nailed the two places I refuse to ever get gas from when there is any other option. If there was a good third option I’d take it here, but while Google commands so much market share and a new competitor would probably siphon users from Bing (and it’s not enough users) I don’t think a real alternative will come. I’m intrigued by kagi, though.

              • bitwaba@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                A lot can change in 13 years, but a company that starts off morally evil does not magically get better as time goes on. If anything, they’re worse - we just don’t have the luxury of knowing exactly how yet.

            • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Serious question. Can you spell out for me the exact advantages you feel they provide? I have a free account, but every time I try them out I feel like their answers are honestly a little bit worse than Ecosia.

              • 31337@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I find Kagi results a little bit better than Google’s (for most things). I like that certain categories of results are put in their own sections (listicles, forums) so they’re easy to ignore if you want. I like that I can prioritize, deprioritize, block, or pin results from certain domains. I like that I can quickly switch “lenses” to one of the predefined or custom lenses.

    • UprisingVoltage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not give a single fuck and they will use whatever is preinstalled on their device

    • Zurgo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m pretty pessimistic about this:

      1. Say no
      2. Google still scrapes your site to train their AI
      3. People don’t care that its wrong, still use Google instead of other search engines
    • melroy@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      DuckDuckGo is just Bing. Which is uh… going from Google to Microsoft. Maybe not much better either

    • Lvxferre@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      For now.

      DDG gets search results from Bing, owned by Microsoft. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the later did the same as Google did.

      • Q*Bert Reynolds@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s technically true, but it’s as misleading as saying they get their search results from Yandex. Their results are aggregated from several search engines, not just Bing. They also have their own web crawler, DuckDuckBot, which absolutely respects RobotRules.

        Edit: I’m told my information is out of date. No more Yandex because of Uncle Sam. Yahoo is just Bing now, so that index doesn’t count anymore. The bulk of the rest of their sources are largely inconsequential specialized search engines. Their sources page states that they “largely source from Bing”.

  • charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m not sure of the advantages of showing up in Google search results. It seems like something that I wouldn’t want to happen anyway.

  • bluewing@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve switched from DuckDuckGo to Ghostery Private search. I’ve been happier with the results than DDG.

    • pacoboyd@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m using SEARXNG. It’s a search engine aggrigate and you can mix and match where you want your results to come from. It’s like using Google from a decade ago.

      • trailee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I remember discovering MetaCrawler in the 90s (before Google was even founded) and it quickly became the go-to search engine because its aggregate results were superior to any of the other options at the time. I don’t think its source mix was tunable, but that sounds like appropriate progress for 30 years.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Interesting. That seems a fairly heavy duty search and possibly more than most users would want to go about installing. But it’s something to keep in mind if needed.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I hope it happens one day, but that’s an almost insurmountable task given the scale.

      Take the entirety of the fediverse, and it’s entire history, and you’re probably talking a days worth of search engine indexing compute & storage.

      The scale is large and the fediverse is incredibly small. Keeping my fingers crossed, but definitely not holding my breath.

      In the meantime, I’ll use Kagi.