This could be the weirdest kind of moat yet. If you crawled all the things and built a model before everything became bot-generated, you can get clean post-2024 human data from the human inputs to your tool. If you haven't, then maybe you're stuck with the 2023-and-earlier crawls, limiting your models' relevance. We've already seen that the feedback loops of training models on model outputs isn't nearly as valuable, and can get wacky fast. It'll be weird to see how that plays out.
The shadow libraries are the largest collection of human knowledge to date, and completely untainted by AI. Any search engine that crawls and indexes them will have a tenfold increase in quality and be as revolutionary as the invention of the internet. No LLM model needed.
On top of that, there is no incentive for AI generated content to enter the shadow libraries at all.
Except that human generated doesn't really seem to matter, all that seems to matter is some basic guard rails on the data you choose. Meta has models generating training data then grading it and select the best examples to reincorporate into the training set, and it's improving benchmarks.
Another way they can use this is to log the generated text, and when crawling pages if they find text that Chrome didn’t generate, there’s a chance it was a human, or another tool. But I doubt if people have access to this on Chrome they will really use another tool, so Google can probably differentiate between sources.
I can already see the wonderful cyberpunk future, where people writing e-mails use Gmail's AI assistant to add all the polite boilerplate, while the recipients trying to get through their overflowing inbox use the Gmail-integrated AI summarizer to pare it all back down.
Assuming that, like ChatGPT, the model runs on Google's servers doesn't this vastly increase the cost to Google of offering Chrome for free? Now you have to provide AI compute time to every 4chan poster and forum warrior.
The economics of AI still seems nuts to me. Feels like another bait and switch in the making when all these "free" services need to start showing some revenue.
It's a direct evolution of the search paradigm. You go from entering a few keywords roughly related to what you want and then clicking on ads to continue the search, to having a short conversation with the AI honing in precisely what you need and then having the AI complete the transaction or even generate the content for you, optionally with a transaction attached.
The direct interactions with AI increase the fidelity of the customer model of you that Google has and uses to optimize sales to you for it's customers.
Even further, the most common source of inspiration for purchases is the behavior of other people. If the AI can sufficiently emulate humans and ingratiate itself enough to you then it can directly influence your behavior just by suggesting that it would make certain decisions in your place or that others have already.
This is actually not far removed from the existing situation, just the next level of technological capability.
By actually generating responses for you, it starts training you to allow it to make decisions on your behalf. This may readily extend into purchase decisions.
I find it interesting that the edge browser already has this feature. I wonder if chrome feels pressured to have feature parity specifically with AI or if they believe this change will actually improve their usage metrics?
Little keeping up with the joneses moves like these are always great for a bump in the stock price, its not always to shoot for some metric or business profit
In the example screenshot, the assistant takes this input:
> im interested in this place - do you allow dogs?
and writes this output:
> I'm interested in your property. Its exactly what I've been looking for. To make it perfect for me, I just need to know if the unit is pet-friendly. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
The input is concise and to the point, the latter is infuriatingly verbose and formulaic. But I guess it'll be easy to filter out humans I would actually be willing to communicate with.
She writes like the latter example. I find myself continuously frustrated by people. She loves them. I find that I'm constantly rejected when suggesting things, she isn't.
There's a middle ground which is what a normal person would write:
I'm interested in your property, but I have a dog. Will that be a issue? Thank you!
or
I'm interested in your property, it looks like just what I need. But I need to know if you allow dogs. Thanks!
People are busy. The kind of filler in the AI example shows that you don't value their time more than you value trying to sound sophisticated when making a simple inquiry. But people also don't have time to decipher possibly cryptic text-message-shorthand. Think about your audience, and write accordingly.
It's not only pointlessly verbose, it ruins the intention behind the input! The user wants to know if they allow dogs, not pets. They can get a "yes we allow some pets" response and now they have to start all over to figure out which pets those are, whether dogs are included, etc.
This is a shitload of computational expenditure to make things objectively worse by introducing an entirely new class of problem to the original message. It's literally "I had a problem, so I used AI, and now I have two problems"
When I take the output apart: The first sentence is to the point and short. The second is potentially redundant but might increase the likelihood of a reply. The third one is perhaps a bit over the top and could be merged shorter with the second (e.g., "... looking for, but I was wondering if ..."). Next one is just basic politeness. Last one feels optional but might at the margin increase likelihood/speed of reply.
Not perfect but not bad either (assuming a human reader on the receiving side).
You can fine-tune LLMs in new styles, without even considering all the styles they are already trained on. The formulaic style response is not needed at all.
The formulaic response in the style of Coding Horror:
"Hey there! Your property has piqued my interest—it's what I've been looking for. Just a tiny detail left to seal the deal: Is the unit cool with pets? Thanks a bunch for your time and consideration. Anticipating your swift response!"
Are younger generations, at least in the US, interested that much in negotiating?
I'm kind of in that age gap where the world started converting to barcodes and computer driven prices and at least to me it seems a lot less haggling occurs now. Again, a lot more of our purchases occur with corporate entities where this haggling doesn't occur. Transactions now are more based on smoothness and speed of transaction. You have X for $Y. Here is $Y. Good day.
Huh, maybe this is why big-G hasn't been too concerned about the rise of ChatGPT. As long as they have Chrome, they still have direct access to a huge portion of web users - even if said users have shifted from using their search engine.
LLMs won't destroy human thought since LLMs are an average approximation of human thought. Sure, this might elevate those who are fresh and are just looking for generic copy, though the best writers are secretly just the best thinkers, as writing is a medium to exercise thought.
I'm a bit biased, having built an AI writing tool myself (https://zenfetch.com), though it's for this very reason that we aren't interested in generating new content on your behalf. We simply want to make it easier for you to recall information to augment your work.
Yeah... at this point I just assume that anyone who can't see any negatives to AI has a financial incentive that depends on their not understanding it.
* Is it people who have trouble with reading comprehension, and don't understand that other people can read a lot more into writing than they do?
* People who are insincere?
* People who think corporate-BS language like "for your protection" and "due to unusually high call volumes" is professional- and smart-sounding?
* People who want to create more utter BS filler in the world for some reason. (See SEO, or the eBay seller feature to create bulk of lies like "the total solution for all your computing needs", etc.)
The only scenario I can think of to which I'm sympathetic is non-native speakers who aren't fluent, and who need a translator, or are afraid of politeness faux pas. But even that has pitfalls: a reader with basic reading comprehension is going to infer things about the 'writer' that simply aren't true. For example, a milquetoast LLM like ChatGPT hits some native idioms, and the reader doesn't realize that there's a huge cultural disconnect in awareness and meaning. Even if the text is even superficially saying what the non-fluent person intended (and even that isn't a given, since they're not fluent enough to check).
It is true that Bard/ChatGPT is just two clicks away. But never underestimate the power of defaults. This is definitely not a good default for writing anywhere on the web. Google could at least have made this an extension instead.
The example is that it can make your writing more long-winded without adding any important details, so that it takes more effort for the person to respond? Why? I'm already overly verbose as it is.
> Could Mark the End of the Human Internet
Man... what does that even really mean? Popping over to ChatGPT to do this kind of shit is already mainstream enough to have been the subject of a South Park episode. There's probably hundreds of similar browser extensions for Chrome alone. I guess this is more convenient, but what problem does it really solve?
Call me crazy but, I somehow imagine this browser feature will not lead to some AI Internet singularity. It's just going to slide the crap-factor up a few more notches than it already is, making the Internet even less enticing to use.
[+] [-] 6gvONxR4sf7o|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baq|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carlosjobim|2 years ago|reply
On top of that, there is no incentive for AI generated content to enter the shadow libraries at all.
[+] [-] CuriouslyC|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inerte|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HeatrayEnjoyer|2 years ago|reply
IIRC this is less true with the very largest SOTA models, and that OpenAI is now using synthetic data with success.
[+] [-] kjkjadksj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krajzeg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o0-0o|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexandrB|2 years ago|reply
The economics of AI still seems nuts to me. Feels like another bait and switch in the making when all these "free" services need to start showing some revenue.
[+] [-] ilaksh|2 years ago|reply
The direct interactions with AI increase the fidelity of the customer model of you that Google has and uses to optimize sales to you for it's customers.
Even further, the most common source of inspiration for purchases is the behavior of other people. If the AI can sufficiently emulate humans and ingratiate itself enough to you then it can directly influence your behavior just by suggesting that it would make certain decisions in your place or that others have already.
This is actually not far removed from the existing situation, just the next level of technological capability.
By actually generating responses for you, it starts training you to allow it to make decisions on your behalf. This may readily extend into purchase decisions.
[+] [-] rozim|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notaustinpowers|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tenpoundhammer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kjkjadksj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croon|2 years ago|reply
> im interested in this place - do you allow dogs?
and writes this output:
> I'm interested in your property. Its exactly what I've been looking for. To make it perfect for me, I just need to know if the unit is pet-friendly. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
The input is concise and to the point, the latter is infuriatingly verbose and formulaic. But I guess it'll be easy to filter out humans I would actually be willing to communicate with.
[+] [-] jvanderbot|2 years ago|reply
She writes like the latter example. I find myself continuously frustrated by people. She loves them. I find that I'm constantly rejected when suggesting things, she isn't.
I'm with you, but I think we're wrong.
[+] [-] JohnFen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SoftTalker|2 years ago|reply
I'm interested in your property, but I have a dog. Will that be a issue? Thank you!
or
I'm interested in your property, it looks like just what I need. But I need to know if you allow dogs. Thanks!
People are busy. The kind of filler in the AI example shows that you don't value their time more than you value trying to sound sophisticated when making a simple inquiry. But people also don't have time to decipher possibly cryptic text-message-shorthand. Think about your audience, and write accordingly.
[+] [-] stonogo|2 years ago|reply
This is a shitload of computational expenditure to make things objectively worse by introducing an entirely new class of problem to the original message. It's literally "I had a problem, so I used AI, and now I have two problems"
[+] [-] achrono|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mega_dingus|2 years ago|reply
If there's an HN policy violation in this post, I'm legit curious what it is
[+] [-] RandomLensman|2 years ago|reply
Not perfect but not bad either (assuming a human reader on the receiving side).
[+] [-] emporas|2 years ago|reply
The formulaic response in the style of Coding Horror:
"Hey there! Your property has piqued my interest—it's what I've been looking for. Just a tiny detail left to seal the deal: Is the unit cool with pets? Thanks a bunch for your time and consideration. Anticipating your swift response!"
[+] [-] coffeebeqn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirykl|2 years ago|reply
The AI may be giving up some of the users negotiating leverage there
[+] [-] pixl97|2 years ago|reply
I'm kind of in that age gap where the world started converting to barcodes and computer driven prices and at least to me it seems a lot less haggling occurs now. Again, a lot more of our purchases occur with corporate entities where this haggling doesn't occur. Transactions now are more based on smoothness and speed of transaction. You have X for $Y. Here is $Y. Good day.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bluerooibos|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gabev|2 years ago|reply
LLMs won't destroy human thought since LLMs are an average approximation of human thought. Sure, this might elevate those who are fresh and are just looking for generic copy, though the best writers are secretly just the best thinkers, as writing is a medium to exercise thought.
I'm a bit biased, having built an AI writing tool myself (https://zenfetch.com), though it's for this very reason that we aren't interested in generating new content on your behalf. We simply want to make it easier for you to recall information to augment your work.
[+] [-] krapp|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PheeThav1zae7fi|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] neilv|2 years ago|reply
Who would think that's a good idea?
* Is it people who have trouble with reading comprehension, and don't understand that other people can read a lot more into writing than they do?
* People who are insincere?
* People who think corporate-BS language like "for your protection" and "due to unusually high call volumes" is professional- and smart-sounding?
* People who want to create more utter BS filler in the world for some reason. (See SEO, or the eBay seller feature to create bulk of lies like "the total solution for all your computing needs", etc.)
The only scenario I can think of to which I'm sympathetic is non-native speakers who aren't fluent, and who need a translator, or are afraid of politeness faux pas. But even that has pitfalls: a reader with basic reading comprehension is going to infer things about the 'writer' that simply aren't true. For example, a milquetoast LLM like ChatGPT hits some native idioms, and the reader doesn't realize that there's a huge cultural disconnect in awareness and meaning. Even if the text is even superficially saying what the non-fluent person intended (and even that isn't a given, since they're not fluent enough to check).
[+] [-] CatWChainsaw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aquajet|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CrypticShift|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fivre|2 years ago|reply
2015: what is this nonsense plot? how would you even create a virus that destroys a language? it's inconceivable! it makes no sense! why!?
someone please find whomever it is feeding Hideo Kojima advance knowledge of exactly what the next poison trend in the information industry will be
[+] [-] altruios|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ukuina|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] axegon_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchw|2 years ago|reply
> Could Mark the End of the Human Internet
Man... what does that even really mean? Popping over to ChatGPT to do this kind of shit is already mainstream enough to have been the subject of a South Park episode. There's probably hundreds of similar browser extensions for Chrome alone. I guess this is more convenient, but what problem does it really solve?
Call me crazy but, I somehow imagine this browser feature will not lead to some AI Internet singularity. It's just going to slide the crap-factor up a few more notches than it already is, making the Internet even less enticing to use.
[+] [-] Giorgi|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o0-0o|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]