Oh, I should mention though. There was no advertising at all. They didn't make any money off me. It was 100% Gemini which I recognize as not long-term feasible.
There will come a day (and probably soon) when "training on the public internet" (Reddit, etc) will taint your model with metric tons of corporate contamination, political poison, and other adversarial content intentionally crafted to bias AIs for various reasons (corporate gain, geopolitical information warfare, etc). Basically the AI-equivalent of SEO.
No. The court specifically determined that the Internet Archive was guilty of unauthorized copying. It was not simply an unfounded or unproven allegation. The Authors Guild, the National Writers Union, the European Writers Council, and the Society of Authors in the UK all came out against the Internet Archive, and supported the suit.
Each new restriction limits the archive’s ability to act as a comprehensive backstop.
This self-inflicted damage to the wayback machine is the real tragedy of this entire affair. When IA was asked to stop CDL - many times - founder Brewster Kahle continued. The National Writers Union tried to open a dialogue as early as 2010 but was ignored:
The Internet Archive says it would rather talk with writers individually than talk to the NWU or other writers’ organizations. But requests by NWU members to talk to or meet with the Internet Archive have been ignored or rebuffed.
https://nwu.org/nwu-denounces-cdl/
When the requests to abandon CDL turned into demands, Kahle dug in his heels. When the inevitable lawsuits followed, and IA lost, he insisted that he was still in the right and plowed ahead with appeals. And here we are today.
Though I can find its AI answers annoying aggressive. I'll look up like two search terms and the AI will bullshit multiple paragraphs out of despite having zero context of what I am looking for.
DuckDuckGo seems to have detection of whether it should give an AI answer. And it allows you to have more granular control of when you want to get an AI answer. And is overall less distracting than Google's.
This is probably a difficult-to-solve problem; given that they generate billions of these a day, not even Google can afford to devote enough compute to each query to reliably generate quality results. You can see this by selecting the "AI mode" from the search interface after getting the mediocre summary - the results are much better and generally perfectly usable. Though even that is probably a special minimal-compute version of the lowest tier of Gemini, it's still maybe an order of magnitude more capable than whatever generates the search summaries.
The bigger problem is that these search summaries are the default and by far the most common interaction that the general public has with "AI", and because this experience sucks, they just assume that all LLMs are similarly stupid and mostly useless. In non-technical spaces I frequently see the argument that "AI" is not useful for anything, all it generates is garbage hallucinations, and almost invariably they cite some actual terrible experience with the Google AI search summary. I would argue that the strategy of adding LLM summaries to every search is the worst of both worlds - it makes classic search worse while poisoning users against the idea of actual LLM-assisted search.
I’ll add this article to the list of incorrect predictions lol
First it told me I could just remove said balance shaft chain as an emergency repair. Sorry Gemini, it also drives the oil pump.
Then it told me I could remove the water contaminated oil caused by removing the timing case by filling the crankcase with hot, soapy water and running the engine. Lord no.
Then it gave the wrong instructions for putting new gears on the balance shafts which meant the chain guides didn’t align with the chain. I’ll do it my way thanks Gemini.
The rest of the mistakes are too trivial to recount and sure it’s a pretty obscure subject but if I trusted it with a topic I’m not familiar with there is a huge potential for damage if you blindly follow it’s overconfidence. I miss normal searching.
And it’s clear that Google’s Ad model ultimately created a priority inversion. The advertisers became the customer.
I am so glad Kagi came along with a business model that is actually working.
A lot of the "cultural record" the author refers to is just digital junk. Random digital content that very few people care about, if we're being honest. Trying to hoard every bit of digital information ever produced is not the same thing as preserving "culture".
Case in point:
> Even the increasing use of ephemeral formats like Instagram Stories and WhatsApp status updates means that large portions of cultural, social, and political communication are never conserved in the first place. As a society, we can probably survive bad search results and come up with another way to schedule a sunset make-out session. But we can’t aspire to sovereignty if we can’t retain and retrieve our collective memory.
For most of human history, nobody was trying to "conserve" every cultural, social or political communication ever produced, and I fail to see how Instagram Stories and WhatsApp status updates, many of which aren't even truly broadcast publicly for all to see, are part of some imaginary "collective memory."
If you find a web page, see an Instagram Story or receive a message that's important to you, save it or take a screenshot. But let's not pretend all these things belong in a global Digital Civilizational Archives.
This clickbaity headline format cannot die fast enough
This was the whole point of it all and why the people in power have bet the farm on it.
And yes, if you take what the AI tells you at face value it could be wrong. But if you are aware of this and aware of the ways in which LLMs are likely to shit the bed, it is quicker to get from request to useful information than it has been with Google search since like 2017.
And also, yes, the old balance of Google driving clicks to sites that will then generate revenue off more Google Ads being shown after you click through to them creating a virtuous cycle is completely busted, and that sucks. It does not impact me directly but it certainly seems like unless a better system is devised that it is one of a few ways in which AI is likely to stall out its own training funnel.
The most famous one was probably Benjamin Franklin’s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Richard%27s_Almanack
Paper encyclopedias might make a comeback for the same reason.
I've stopped using DDG now because of result quality. I now use a "meta" search backed by EXA, Tavily, and SearXNG in parallel. It can be agentically de-dupped or summarized as needed. Search as we knew it is done, largely because clicking through to evaluate result relevance before diving deeper sucks. Now we have agents that can do that portion and perform multiple searches, building on information in the last batch, to collect good results
This statement, from the sixth paragraph of the article, is something that I would have liked to see addressed more in the article. The article implies that this is something that must always be true, or cannot be changed, and simply focuses on how we could have better/better funded/better protected intermediaries (AKA gatekeepers), and doesn't discuss the possibility of an internet (or part of the internet) without gatekeepers (and doesn't ask if it has ever existed/does exist/should exist)
My hope is that with the torrent protocol we can make the archived knowledge discoverable and seedable, because currently there's only the web archive and the kiwix download servers for archived contents. Both of them still are centralized servers that bear the cost of hosting those files.
If the only visitors to websites are now LLM training bots then what incentive is there to publish anything new? For how long can we continue to rely on pre-2024 non-AI generated content?
To be more precise, I hate the SEO shithole the internet has become, that Google serves up, that Google facilitated, indirectly created.
(I really don't have any tears to shed if there is a death of the Corporate Internet™.)
They're a good jumping off point, but I need to delve into the original sources just like I did when I used Google.
YMMV.
i don’t agree with the google has better results thing. sometimes it does. most of the time it’s just that google has the site i want higher in the ordering than DDG. personally i’m fine scrolling down a little bit more. it’s rare i need to go to google for something that DDG doesn’t have at all in their results, but it does happen.
i do have to go to google for maps/directions/planning travel. a lot that’s annoying.
If you want it so bad stop crying and make it, that's what I've been doing. It works a lot better than whatever this post and many of these comments are. There are dozens of us !
AI is merely amplifying what social media and FAANG in general already have done to the 90s web.
Now Google just gives you an AI answer with random values pulled from blogs and Reddit. It's almost always blatantly incorrect. I genuinely can't understand why Google would destroy its most valuable search features. Disclaimer: I work for Ecosia, so I know for a fact that users really value these search widgets, and it was often cited as a reason they couldn't leave Google.
I honestly expected a made-up useless generated image that matched the idea but not the actual thing.
Guess I’m still living in 2024.
I tried out Google search for a few technical searches recently and it was surprisingly ad and AI free. Not bad at all and much better than I remember from last year.
Then I put in some non-technical searches and it was all ads and AI and basically unusable.
There probably are some important hidden discord groups that would explain the origin of many political positions. Unlike smokey meetings in scummy bars, that exists now and is on a database somewhere.
Not only is search revenue growing, but it is growing at an accelerating rate.
At the same time, operating margins are expanding.
I don't know the name of the logical fallacy where someone personally uses an LLM instead of Google Search and then infers that the search business is dying, without ever reading a financial statement.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-holds-google-liable-for-f...
That day has already arrived, it is already happening.
Some of the proposals to address this include charging bots for access to web resources, but they will also have repercussions for regular users. I don't see how you solve this cleanly.
I write because I have ideas I want to share, and whether that happens with LLMs as an intermediary isn't important to me.
But we already have the latter case that exists - ad blockers. Ad blockers literally serve up the word-for-word original content minus the ads.
We're likely at the "golden age" of LLM-assisted web searching and summarization.
Hopefully open models keep it cracked open, but expecting enshittification is always the safe bet these days.
I miss when Google was like a grep for the entire visible Internet. Now it tries to second-guess my search and direct me to a bunch of sites which all have identical information that isn't what I'm looking for.
Around that time Bing and DDG were actually better. Then LLM's came along and they started to take things seriously again. Maybe they think the OpenAI threat has abated enough to begin enshitification cycle 2.0.
Also I realized the other day how hard it is to find song lyrics for anything other than quite mainstream songs.
A lot of corporate ad spend is already planned, and Google can adjust the costs up as much as they like. They hold the lever.
The point is not about 'quicker' requests but precise requests. It definitely has worsened, though not on a single degree on al levels like the HN hivemind claims, but some aspects are still somewhat precise but others are definitely crap.
i.e. when searching about my neighborhood it still returns better results than bing, yahoo, ddg, yandex and what have you. But they are buried into a load of crap of alleged "relevant" results (those things past the ai stuff) that aren't relevant in any way.
I still have hope though. Maybe the Internet will be better. Currently everything has to be monietized. Everything is ad heavy. At the beginning it was not so. People created things out of passion, or boredom. We can returned to that scheme.
I have seen neocities, personal blogs created and maintained in this year. I know I run my own "Internet index" https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database
or you can press the gear button -> "Ai features: Manage" -> Search assist
I am a happy subscriber of Kagi though, they provide a really excellent service.
It seems to get shell scripts right most of the time.
Seems difficult to produce nowadays as even well researched topics are constantly attacked. Climate change papers as a small example.
It’s like bragging about a new highly addictive psychedelic drug that a dealer gave you a taste of for free. The effects are awesome today, you feel so fun and free! Never mind that it’s destroying your body and that the dealer will eventually charge you or demand you pay in other ways, that’s a problem for another day. Weeee!
We thought blogspam was bad, at least it was easy to ignore. It's hard to find authoritative sources for a number of topics, worryingly health advice is one of them.
It does, but do you think that people at that time thought anywhere near as much about preserving their scribbles as we do?
I'd venture a guess that we've created more "content" since the advent of the internet than in all of human history prior, and most of it is stored on things that aren't even designed to last a human lifetime without failure.
The idea that we're going to save every piece of digital junk for posterity just isn't realistic or healthy.
> What's just disposable background noise to us may provide context into how we lived and thought to our far-future descendants.
You're right, but you're also assuming that they're going to care that much, and that we're going to survive that long.
I generally agree, but I think AI mode actually improved things somewhat compared to how things were just prior to it existing.
And I'm not saying what we have now is better than Golden Age Google, but things were just getting worse and worse for almost a decade. AI didn't fix the decade worth of decline, but it is the first thing I've seen from Google that at least partially reversed it for my own usage.
In the pre-LLM days it was cool that Google did weather, unit conversions, sports results, etc. But that's not even close to their value proposition. Even 5 years ago if someone told me they had planned a photograph and got it wrong because Google gave them the wrong time for sunset, I would have called them a moron for relying on Google! There are sites and apps dedicated to this. Use one of them!
That expectation is a problem, has always been a problem, and Tim Berners Lee never mentioned anything about a reward structure when coming up with the WWW.
It's all under the guise of "We're fighting SPAM", but the algorithm (or model) they use is heavily skewed towards intents (actions) and brands (because they 'trust' big names).
And it's not working.
A simple, short informative blog about a tool you used that could be of interest to max. 100 people on this planet is no longer getting ranked, if it gets indexed at all.
Those posts tick all boxes: no incoming links, no authority, thin content.
It changes somewhat between "Google Updates", but it's pretty clear that it's no longer working.
Multiply the 100 people not finding that post by millions of queries and it's now a big problem for Google.
My dad asked me the other day if Google got worse because smaller companies are not paying Google enough money.
He didn't see any difference between ads and content, because all results are now big brands only.
"Helpful content" is such a misnomer. It removes all helpful content in favour of AI overviews and only shows intent-driven, commercial content.
We're watching the end of Google's hegemony for sure.
Today everything has disappeared or has been conglomerated into siloes, sanitised, focusing on engagement. You have YouTube videos about it (which is more cheap entertainment than actual education), you get some posts here once in a while, there’s Reddit where all intelligent discussion goes to die. IRC is a wasteland of idle bouncers. Then the LLMs arrived to kill what is left.
Who says the Internet is a vibrant place today mistakes flashiness with depth. It’s all empty calories, just makes you hungry for more, never satisfies.
It turns out a lot of people ask Google when the sun will set. It’s a good fact to know. Getting a ballpark on twilight can help you plan a bike ride, barbecue, or a perfectly timed promposal. The occurrence lasts only between two and a half and four minutes, and it happens dynamically depending on your proximity to the equator, making it a tricky event to keep tabs on.
Recently, sunset chasers have been missing the main event because Google’s new AI summaries started inventing times. “I had the projector set up outside and was waiting for the sun to set,” wrote one Facebook user in Colorado Springs, “but to my surprise I was simply living in the past. AI informed me the sunset had already happened.” These episodes point to something many have noticed: the world’s dominant search engine now struggles over basic facts. The company that built its reputation returning the right answer has, as one tech expert observed, “lost its edge.”
Still, we keep googling because we keep expecting the internet to know things. That stubborn hope underpins almost every argument about information access. When search worsens, we grumble that Google has been enshittified. When AI hallucinates, we say the model is sloppy. When misinformation spreads, we reassure ourselves the truth is still “out there,” waiting patiently for us to string together a better query. Even as the web is polluted by AI slop, we cling to the belief it’s a skills problem and share search tips.
But what if the “truth” is harder to find online because the infrastructure that once stored it is breaking down? Some of that is wear and tear. Link rot erases pages every day. Key sections of the United States Constitution briefly disappeared from the Library of Congress website because of a coding error. But by interposing an error-prone AI between us and an original source, Google has ensured that if an underlying page exists, it can become practically undiscoverable. Meanwhile, pollution is now moving upstream: 404 Media reports companies are planting content on Reddit to influence the answers generated by AI search, contaminating the public record from which those systems draw their summaries.
The corpus is collapsing in real time. This degraded digital space should force a broader understanding of cultural sovereignty. Right now, the debate is framed largely as a fight over whether foreign mega platforms like Netflix, YouTube, or Spotify should support Canadian content. That charged conversation sidesteps the deeper question: Who preserves and controls access to our cultural record—not just in the present but for generations after?
Search can no longer pretend to be a neutral gateway to a stable body of knowledge. While the web has always been organized around intermediaries that shape what survives online and who sees it, the internet’s archival function is today breaking down under relentless pressure from stakeholders with very different—and often conflicting—priorities. At least book banning happens in your face: it has villains, school board meetings, sensational headlines. Digital erasure is more insidious and, in some ways, more devastating. A banned book can still be found. A scrubbed webpage can disappear so completely few people would ever realize it was there.
Consider what happened to FiveThirtyEight, an American website that focused on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging. The Walt Disney Company had owned the blog through its subsidiaries for more than a decade. Its founder, Nate Silver, left in 2023, and by March 2025, the remaining staff had been laid off. Once Disney concluded the site was no longer an active asset—no new journalism and no meaningful advertising revenue—it straight up deleted nearly the entire archive.
The retrieval crisis has reached even Wikipedia, one of the world’s most significant volunteer-run public knowledge resources. For years, search engines sent billions of viewers to its pages. But now, AI systems scrape and ingest Wikipedia’s content directly when presenting their results, eliminating the need for users to click through. Wikipedia has become the infrastructure of its own demise: dwindling traffic means attention and donations no longer reliably flow back to the encyclopedia to keep it alive.
What has been happening to the Internet Archive is just as alarming. A non-profit digital library, it collects and makes available materials that might otherwise vanish—from audio recordings to historical documents to books. It is best known for the Wayback Machine, a service that has captured hundreds of billions of snapshots of the web at different points in time. Journalists, researchers, historians, lawyers, and the public use it to recover deleted pages, verify past statements, and document changes to online content. The Wayback Machine is the closest thing the web has to a fail-safe backup memory.
The overall project, however, is not only buckling under the engineering strain of indexing and storing an ever-growing repository of information but it is also being battered by cyberattacks and costly litigation. After publishers successfully sued the Internet Archive over its digital lending program, calling it unauthorized copying, news organizations started blocking the Wayback Machine’s crawlers out of fear that archived pages can provide AI companies with an indirect source of copyrighted material. Each new restriction limits the archive’s ability to act as a comprehensive backstop.
Even the increasing use of ephemeral formats like Instagram Stories and WhatsApp status updates means that large portions of cultural, social, and political communication are never conserved in the first place. As a society, we can probably survive bad search results and come up with another way to schedule a sunset make-out session. But we can’t aspire to sovereignty if we can’t retain and retrieve our collective memory.
For now, you can still use Google to find out how other governments are building alternatives to it. France has come to treat foreign platforms as a threat to both technological sovereignty and national cybersecurity. In a prescient late 2018 move, the country’s national assembly and the ministry of the armed forces began adopting Qwant, a French service hosted in Europe. Qwant operates on a different model: it doesn’t store search data, sell personal information, or use targeted advertising based on your browsing history. The European Parliament, with its 720 elected members as well as thousands of administrative staff, also made the switch, reflecting the growing belief that information retrieval is a strategic asset in its own right.
Every small breakup with Big Tech cracks open the door wider on what’s possible. France now requires civil servants to use Tchap, a homegrown messaging app replacing foreign platforms such as WhatsApp and Signal in government communications. European governments have followed suit on the push away from Silicon Valley, swapping out Microsoft products with open-source alternatives across hundreds of thousands of workstations. The European Commission just announced it would join W Social, a new independent social site created by a Swedish start-up. As Denmark’s digitalization minister, Caroline Stage Olsen, put it: “Far too much public digital infrastructure is today tied up with very few foreign suppliers. This makes us vulnerable.”
That fighting mood is pushing some countries to go even further. In a ruling that could become a landmark precedent, a German court recently held Google liable for false statements generated by its AI overview feature. The case arose after Google’s AI wrongly linked two publishing companies to scammy business practices. Because the search engine extracts and rewrites information in its own words, the court reasoned, it is doing more than impartially pointing users toward the public record. It’s authoring an entirely new layer of content—and with that comes editorial responsibility. If foreign technology firms can no longer claim to be a passive conduit for information, governments could have greater latitude in regulating them.
Google is appealing the decision, but the point has been made: looking after the information economy can no longer be a side project for underfunded institutions. Wikipedia is as miraculous as the Wayback Machine is indispensable. Still, we need to stop pretending volunteerism alone can hold up the public internet. We understand this duty more clearly in other domains. After all, roads aren’t governed by ride-sharing companies; payment apps don’t set monetary policy; cloud service providers don’t dictate national security frameworks (at least not yet). Yet we have been shockingly casual about governing our digital dependencies.
It’s hard to imagine a country that had its AI strategy blessed by Google’s chief economist choosing to stop routing the everyday policy work of the state through an advertising company. Switching over to a privacy-preserving default would reduce unnecessary data leakage and signal that public institutions treat search as an infrastructure key to our digital sovereignty rather than a “free” consumer service.
Information has economic value; even when individual searches look mundane, the aggregate pattern can surface quite sensitive insights about a society and its citizens. If governments want to get serious about actually governing the intangible economy, they must first govern the conditions that make information durable and discoverable. We wouldn’t be starting entirely from scratch. We have pieces of this kind of public-interest architecture kicking around: Library and Archives Canada, which preserves federal web records and other historical information, and the Internet Archive Canada, which works in tandem with the main organization and hosts data backups at Canadian universities.
Canada has built this kind of digital infrastructure before. CANARIE—originally, the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and Education—helped create a national research and education network for universities, researchers, and innovators. In the 1990s, SchoolNet and the Community Access Program brought schools and libraries online way before connectivity was taken for granted. The Public Knowledge Project at Simon Fraser University gave the world Open Journal Systems, helping thousands of scholarly journals publish outside the grip of major commercial platforms, beginning in 2002. MapleMusic built an online market for Canadian music before streaming swallowed cultural discovery. These projects shared a premise we should recover: Canada does not have to wait for private platforms to organize and control our digital lives.
The sun is setting on the old bargain with Google: give us your curiosity and we will give you the world. What rises next could be stranger and much more synthetic: an internet randomly remembered by machines and monetized by intermediaries. Or it could be something sturdier: a public internet treated as infrastructure, with historical memory preserved not because it is profitable but because it is ours.
The future of public knowledge will depend not only on what exists but on who has the initiative and incentives to preserve it. Even this article won’t be online forever. Should it?
Maybe a job for an AI to do? :D
If nobody can expect to make money on the internet, that could be a good thing. But we won't get an indie-web authenticity utopia if people are still incentivized in other ways to filter their intellectual and cultural contributions to the internet through AI.
Are you actually saying you'd be OK with that?
Yeah, authors don't want to be recognized as authors, they don't want any reward for their work, they don't want to amass pool of loyal readers, interact with them, etc.
All they want is for halucinating AI to take excerpts of their work and compile it with random sh!t.
GENIUS
Not sure of the effectiveness but it's there.
And before the obvious comments on how GenAI is creative, then please do this OpenAI and Anthropic, for your next LLM. Just teach it Python, C and Rust and give it some good books. But dont give it access to Github...lets see what you can do then...
With the not-so-minor qualification that the biggest thieves have always gotten away scot-free. AI is just the international whole-internet version of this.
The public internet is dead, the future is private invite-only walled gardens.
Corporations love a walled garden, what we need is open-source frameworks to create these islands, rather than defaulting to horrible systems like Discord and Twitter-clones.
I used to not worry. I was sure that a competitor would come along and fix search. But the longer that's not happening, the more nervous I'm getting that we'll actually lose search. If a few more years pass in the current state, I'm afraid the majority of people will forget what search was like and default to AI summaries.
I've tried alternatives, including Kagi (not actually relevant because there's no way I'm – directly or indirectly – buying Russian products) and Uruky, but they're not good enough.
(Edit: Added "directly or indirectly" about Kagi to point out that I'm not claiming that Kagi itself is Russian.)
I trust LLMs more than search engines to discover my content and propagate it to users. They might "steal" something, sure, but I'm essentially invisible to the search engines as I could never hope to break into the top 10 links on a popular search term. LLMs can scan thousands of links and (for now) are more interested in quality rather than click monetization or referral incentives.
obviously new content still has value because it remains the source layer for LLM agents. it just wont be ads giving you revenues thats all.
Probably not.
Turns out, people want food and shelter more than entertainment. And psycho billionaires want money more than fun.
The internet was never ad free. The first ad was posted online in the 1970s (for DEC)! It pissed people off but not everyone: supposedly it generated $18M in sales. There was very little advertising back then only because the internet was restricted to a handful of large companies and universities.
The web itself was launched in 1991 and the early web was inaccessible to basically everyone as it required an extremely expensive NeXTStep machine. Windows didn't even ship a TCP stack in this era, iirc. So took a few years for the web to reach the point where it was usable at home. By 1995 the web was starting to become barely usable thanks to Win95 and Netscape, and DoubleClick launched immediately in the same year.
My memory of the early web is that basically every website had DoubleClick ads on them, it was notorious for that. "Punch the Monkey" was an early campaign. Almost every topic oriented website carried ads, partly because bandwidth and servers were very expensive so that helped defray the costs. GeoCities took off because it handled the complexities of running ads for you, so you could publish for free.
LLMs just use everything, generate similar code with no attribution and keep users from visiting, so no bragging rights or attention.
Worse, there are some PRs that seem fully generated ...
So i mostly stopped sharing and started pulling my old repos offline.
At this pace, i don't want to compete with a clone of myself in the future that will do my work for much cheaper.
Just the other day I was trying to find out "What american tree species have the deepest roots". And all the AI responses were giving me back generic lists of big trees and claiming that roots going 20ft deep were the deepest. I know for a fact the mesquite trees behind my house can easily grow roots > 100 ft deep.
If I had clicked on the articles with generic lists of big trees, I would have realized they were all low quality clickbait sources and moved on. But the AI presentation makes you think that the information comes well-researched.
https://github.com/asciimoo/hister
> Hister is a private search engine for the pages you visit and the files you keep. It indexes their full contents so you can find information again from the web interface, terminal, or an AI assistant connected through MCP.
Then it started serving synonyms, attempted to correct spelling, and so forth. Instead of serving up that there was 0 results, it attempted to be "helpful".
For a while, you could enable "verbatim" search, but even that has gotten corrupted.
Their search quality has deteriorated ever since that change. It is sad.
Sure, humans would benefit.
It took them searching, reading themselves, maybe even understanding something in the process, to complete a 360° revolution of their squirrel cages in time T.
Now they can omit searching, skip reading to the regurgitated answer, throw away understanding, and complete a full revolution in T/N, where N is a heuristic value directly proportional to the amount of skin in the AI hype.
But the catch is that the squirrel cage must run non-stop still.
Empirically, however, LLMs don't strip out the author: the big models know a lot about what I've written even with search disabled. Ex: https://claude.ai/share/8cbcdf88-a360-421a-8c06-ae7b7992e866
> “I had the projector set up outside and was waiting for the sun to set,” wrote one Facebook user in Colorado Springs, “but to my surprise I was simply living in the past. AI informed me the sunset had already happened.”
It does sound a bit bizarre.
Sure. But you can see that for some people (myself included), writing for peers is part of the joy? And that if instead a megacorp places an opaque computer program between the author and the readers, that joy might be ruined?
I think the main thing Cloudflare is trying to do is block direct traffic from frontier labs and then start charging them for access. They might end up shooting themselves in the foot, as this simply empowers sketchy residential-proxy outfits to undercut Cloudflare and sell the data to labs for less.
So many former regular Fox News viewers have reported changing their mind when confronted with some alternative information sources for a while. News is also one-way, and most Fox victims aren't people who discuss issues with all sides.- they're in bubbles.
Installing an app to learn a single time would be the real moron option.
and how the newspapers replaced the town criers before them,
why shouldn't the "internet" be supplanted by a more accessible medium?
Why should I have to suffer through Fandom raping me with screen-obscuring banners and "PLEASE ALLOW ADS" just to make some sense of fucking Warhammer 40K lore (written by unpaid volunteers anyway)? instead of just asking ChatGPT what the fuck Globriznaroks is/are.
Why should we support shady companies by sitting through their ads on YouTube videos for minute topics instead of just asking AI for the shit I want to know about?
Why should we submit to the whims of 3 mods on a subreddit deciding what thousands should get to see (fuck /r/AskScience) and then getting low-effort answers or outright trolling anyway? instead of just asking AI?
Bury me, I am ready.
Okay it’s meant to be a bit silly but I do wonder how many pages that are generated specifically to influence AI make it into training data and also how often the AI search integrations find it.
Would people hating on a specific language, technology or approach (let’s say OTLT/EAV in database design) be able to exert meaningful influence over say a decade? Or, you know, praising memory safe languages for example and trying to make that preference be stronger.
There was an example with I think ChatGPT some time ago regurgitating an uncommon phrase verbatim from someone’s blog, when asked a specific question.
The problematic bots are all disguising themselves as Chrome and sending requests from millions of residential proxy IPs, and the only real solution to those is some sort of captcha or PoW page on first visit.
> One you pay for yourself !
SEO is the practice done by webmasters of optimizing a website to improve its visibility and ranking in search engine results.
If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?
20 years ago I thought that we will wait to have kids as “a war will come”. I was overthinking and I am happy now that I changed my mind :)
Is it useful or does it make you happy? Or it might even make some money? Nice. Do it. My life is easier.
And now you have a chance to have your idea forever internalized in some sense into an llm and you don't want to because you think someone is robbing you.
Or have they started own indexing?
Who is standing by to replace them though? OpenAI and Anthropic certainly not, they are burning money in a fire pit to stay alive. There is no way in hell they can afford the compute necessary to replace Google.
Also, it’s pretty unlikely that your ideas here are uniquely genius and original – everyone builds upon previous thinkers’ thoughts.
Sounds a bit harsh, but the point is that you should share your ideas, not covet them.
Have we yet lost the open ideals of university sharing? The core of open source?
The failure of the GPL is that you can't force anyone to collaborate and share if they don't really want to.
I don't really have a point I guess, other than even after being steeped in a dead internet for years (with a slow decline spanning at least a decade arguably) I need to approach what I think is the internet in a completely different way. As in, not at all besides what is absolutely required for work. We're ants in a jar now, not cowboys like we used to be.
Don't get me wrong, I too use LLMs for development and more, and I too know how they've been built, and I'm also a creative (music, 3D, VFX and animation) and for sure stuff I've published in the past, both code and otherwise, is now used to create new things for people and I get nothing, similar situation as countless of others. Yet I still use AI, so I'm not trying to create some "gotcha" moment against you here, I'm genuine curious about what you think about this sort of conflicting thinking, as I'm in the very same situation.
Well as far as digital letters, photos, menus, etc. are concerned, there's nothing stopping someone with the means and motivation from investing in a doomsday storage facility specifically designed to store these things for posterity. If people can do this for crypto they can do it for digital content.
As for physical items, do you know how much junk Americans have in storage units? The US self-storage industry generates over $40 billion in annual revenue. We're probably keeping more "stuff" in storage units where it has a chance of surviving a zombie apocalypse than at any point in human history.
Why not?
AI companies are also working to integrate training with real-world experience through sensors and robotics, to shrink the gap between human experience and hallucinated LLM experience.
They all have archives of pre-LLM content. There's also archive.org, google books, and pirate ebook archives. I don't know what they're doing to build video and audio archives, but judging from the cost of spinning rust, they're storing significant quantities of that, too.
Some parts of the internet are curated, and even with LLM influence they're still worth training on. I doubt wikipedia or stackexchange or rosettacode will ever cease to be useful at all.
PS: I hope not many people are the type to see a slavic name and conclude Russia.
They do this because they benefit from their site being visited or the information they are providing being noticed.
> If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?
I see no reason it would have that effect. It does, however, create different incentives for the search provider to improve the signals indicating page relevance since the user is the priority instead of advertisers.
I don't necessarily think all this digital stuff is worth saving, i just see how it could be that we are essentially erasing our modern historical record by putting 100℅ of it in private data centers with no permanent records.
And then you see how plenty of contemporary digital media from the last 30-40 years is actually already lost to time just in our short timeframe. I don't think acknowledging that this could be detrimental is necessarily an argument for trying to preserve all of it. We, as a society, went very rapidly from preserving a lot of it to preserving none of it. I don't see the harm in thinking about the implications of that.
Nobody actively preserved letters and menus and postcards and photos, they just persisted by nature of being physical. Digital records only persist with continuous effort to preserve them. So the record for future historians will be highly curated and likely much more limited.
Sometimes I use Marginalia's "Vintage Web" search for niche topics; most results are dead blogs and old .edu personal websites that someone forgot to delete, still a vanishing minority of anything one could find in 2001.
>>>> Is there some search engine that you think could have become popular and not ended up with SEO optimization?
>>> One you pay for yourself !
>> SEO is the practice done by webmasters of optimizing a website to improve its visibility and ranking in search engine results.
> They do this because they benefit from their site being visited or the information they are providing being noticed.
>> If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?
> I see no reason it would have that effect.
Agreed.
What we actually need is a browser that filters out bullshit.
In the article it mentions the rise of other search competitors like Qwant implying they are causing Google to die as it bleeds market share to them.
The pitch: it is network-agnostic. The same mesh network runs on the Internet or through LoRa radios or any other physical layer than allows the exchange of data packets. It scales from private networks to global meshes. It's the wild west. People are excited, and eager to grow further.
Failure of the GPL? How can you even put those words next to each other? GPL is an amazing success. It took software out of hands of SV / VC / corpo crowd and put it where it should be - users.
There's definitely a risk of over-thinking things. Just do things. You're not likely to regret it.
he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.
1. Pre-web. Internet is mostly about messages sent to individuals or groups. USENET organizes group discussion into browseable topic-oriented hierarchies, IRC does the same but with lists in fragmented networks. If the discussion exists at all, finding it is easy.
2. Early web. Dominated by topic focused websites, early online shops and personal home pages. Search engines suck and face strong competition from manually maintained topic-oriented directories (did anyone else here contribute to DMoz?), content discovery is mutual and webmasters help each other out by joining "web rings". DoubleClick and AdSense start to funnel small amounts of money to creators, but it's enough to offset hosting costs and in many cases can make web hosting effectively free or even yield a small profit. This encourages an explosion of website creation. Discussion moves off USENET onto phpBB forums. Every organization decides it's a cultural imperative to have a presence on the information superhighway. Finding information is easy as long as you can figure out what topic it belongs to.
3. Blogging and centralization era. The internet starts to rebuild itself around people as the primary object, not the topic or category. Directories die because websites can no longer be categorized by content. Web rings die for the same reason. IRC is replaced by instant messengers that are about connecting people with pre-existing friends, not mutual interest groups. Outside of institutional websites that exist to promote the organization, things become hard to find without highly centralized search engines because nobody is putting any effort into organizing or indexing what they write anymore: maybe you get a few tags if you're lucky. Spam, hacking and lack of SSO causes forums to centralize onto Reddit. This is the peak of the search engine era because you are forced to use Google to find anything. The power eventually corrupts the tech firms and they begin political censorship to benefit the left in 2015 [1]. Enormous amounts of information is deliberately made unfindable as part of a large-scale programme of social control.
4. Social media era. All the same problems as blogging except now the bulk of the content goes behind login walls that stop search engines from surfacing them. Video and podcasts start to matter more, both of which are unsearchable by default. Eventually video completely dominates, as few younger people want to read when they could watch instead. Firefox starts to replace IE6, and then Chrome. They bring ad blockers in their wake which starts to choke off ad revenues, so many websites from the web's first era go unmaintained and eventually offline. This is somewhat but not entirely compensated by the falling cost of web hosting. Social media remains because it puts people's faces next to everything, allowing clout farming and viral notoriety that can sometimes be monetized by becoming an influencer. The only part of the web's first era that really survives into this era is Wikipedia and Reddit, which by this time substitute monetary rewards for power tripping by a small group of ideologically driven moderators.
5. AI era. Information is so heavily scattered over so many tiny sourcelets and search engines have become sufficiently useless that full neural integration of knowledge is required, with LLMs issuing massively parallel and complex search engine queries as a backstop.
What can we predict for the AI era? Institutional websites will remain because institutions still have an interest in getting their agenda into LLMs, but visual redesign efforts will largely cease as traffic stats seen by executives show visits completely dominated by AI. There will be lots of conversations of the form, "why redesign our website to look more modern when 99% of traffic is AI which won't care?" Blogs will go the same way as the thematic websites they killed, disappearing as the authors age out. A lot of effort will be put into finding ways to block AI crawlers to create 'human only' spaces, especially by social media firms, but these will fail because AI will just be integrated directly into browsers and become unblockable - and anyway, the incentives to create will be ignored. ChatGPT style text oriented interfaces will last until inferencing capacity catches up, being eventually replaced by voice interaction and on the fly video generation for nearly all users.
Where we go from here is hard to say. Content creation was most pure in the web's first era, where people with knowledge were incentivized to share it with the world by the promise of a bit of fame combined with ad clicks to offset hosting costs. Ad blockers, social media and AI killed that world. You could however bring it back by producing a new platform that isn't like the web, one where AI and search engines are blocked via technological means (e.g. confidential computing). How much anyone would actually enjoy such a web is unclear.
[1] https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-closure-of-the-inter...
If we’re going to use human analogies let’s start with human rights for LLMs.
ideas + execution - not really - (Linus Torvalds sharing his work on Linux and that taking off)
In that case the creator should welcome AIs with open arms; a human reader will forget eventually, but the AI will preserve the knowledge forever.
And the red box references and pots patching and such were true enough, even if everything else got hilarious hollywood treatment.
I'll keep publishing static websites, so I don't even have to worry about load and CPU usage. I don't care who reads it, the value for me is in writing.
I still haven't changed my mind on the "shall I have kids" problem :P
When laundered via LLMs whose pretraining destroys all credit, that can't happen.
I'm thinking more like mesh networks. I spoke of Reticulum elsewhere in this thread, but here I'm thinking I'd like the ability to easily join multiple TCP/IP networks (islands of connectivity) by social group (my friends) or by interest (pirate file-sharing group, my work intranet, a knitting community with their own IRC server, FTP, etc.).
Basically easy-to-use private & encrypted LAN overlays on top of the public internet. Each operator decides who to allow in or kick out of the network.
Wireguard solves the most of technical challenges, but it needs a frontend. The biggest concern probably is most software broadcasts their stuff across all interfaces, defeating the point of isolation between networks.
Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences, so I dislike idea of even very indirectly funding them.
And I support actions that are harmful to Russian economy, also when they are harmful to me - as long as it is not too badly balanced. As this is much cheaper than directly participating in war.
(I am from Poland)
PS
Yes, I understand that at some point there are some indirect effects that you cannot avoid.
I also understand if for some people paying Kagi that pays tiny fraction of that to Yandex that is paying taxes in Russia which funds their wars is too tenuous connection to care.
Yandex is Russian.
I would not describe it as Kagi being indirectly Russian.
Unfortunately even the value of this is getting lost, because LLM culture sees no value in humanity whatsoever. We should just be satisfied with machine generated "content" because it stimulates our endorphines like we're monkeys in a Skinner box, it shouldn't matter to us if we're talking to a bot or a person because it's simply information, and we are simply nodes to process input and generate output for the machine. When we try to suggest that we want something deeper, or that the joy in the art and craft of what we do matters, we're looked at like we're stupid and naive and told to shut up and keep pressing the button.
"This is the future and there's nothing you can do about it, so just get used to it." It's fucking depressing. Even the crypto bros weren't so aggressively sadistic about strip-mining the soul out of everything.
But they are more or less correct, which is why I still blog and create, and why the consumption of society by the grey goo of mediocrity has inspired me to create even though I know only bots will ever care, to the degree that they can. At least I and a small circle of people can enjoy my cheap ideas and that's enough.
There could be open source tooling to create custom private "closednets", with
- trust ring mechanism to allow invitations, flagging, banning, and banning those that invite people who were banned
- the rules of the closednet
- search engine with opt-in scraping
- portal (remember the 80s?) with all the registered nodes, perhaps by service category such as public git repo hosts, web sites etc.
etc.
The first closednet could be Hacker News.
How is this different to, from example, Yggdrasil Network[0]?
You have to feed them food, medical, clothes, life and anything else. I cannot afford to have a child in this climate.
Yourself, have to be prepared to submit all in to a secure job for the next 25 years, it's a big commitment.
The world is overpopulated as it is, adopt. If you can afford all of that and still support the child then do it, have a kid.
But overall children aren't cheap. Easy to produce, but extremely costly to maintain.
no, only some mangled form of it
> he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.
So? That's not a harm.
We used to know better, Standard Oil vertical integration was dismantled.
GPL gave us Linux, but also gave us Amazon, Google and 2020s Microsoft. GPL is why 90+% of libraries on Github are MIT licensed. GPL gave us OpenAI and Anthropic and this here article.
Are people living in/moving towards a saccharine utopia tough?
Agree, in general, people over-think a lot, and aren't "just doing things" enough, the world would be a better place if people acted more, over-think less.
With that said, some decisions are more long-lasting and have a greater impact than others. I'm another child-less person, mainly because I guess I'm selfish enough to enjoy my life with my wife exactly like it is, and she agrees, but also because I know that if we have a kid, then that's not something you can walk back on exactly, he/she/it/them are there, forever now. Very different from me deciding right now "You know, I'm gonna have a joint, grab a book and go to the beach for this entire Tuesday", the types of decisions I think people should overthink less :)
It's failed because of CGNAT, but come back because of IPv6.
- E.g. an idea is "Everybody should have cheap housing! Or an even better idea, everybody should have free housing."
- Ok, how exactly in concrete terms do we actually do that? (The very expensive Execution of the idea.)
- "Uh, well, I leave that as an exercise to the reader."
Ideas are easy and execution is hard. That's what jaded people mean when they say "ideas are a dime a dozen".
And equally faked by bots.
I don't understand why that's a downside.
> It's not a direct harm in itself
I don't understand how it's a harm at all.
What do you mean? That Kagi is directly Russian?
Paying a russian provider isn't against the law and at some point we need to bring Russia back into the warmth of the West.
Even if brave were problematic it would be the lesser evil to me.
This should be "This should be 'You're thinking'." don't you think? Why bother correcting someone's grammar with a sentence fragment? You're just trading one mistake for another. I'm hoping someone finds a grammar error in my post, because continuing this would be hilarious.
I was reminded of a tactic used by life insurance companies, which are more successful when they show a client a photo of themselves at age 70.
I pictured myself sitting there alone, lonely, perhaps without a wife by then (a 50/50 chance). And would I be calling friends my own age? Or my kids?
Although the likelihood that I won’t get along with them as an adult… you never know; another factor is their future partners…
Well, the kids - plus my wife, who wanted kids - won out.
But everyone has their own life, the best one they can imagine, so this is definitely not some kind of persuasion—just a description of the logical process I went through back then.
Look at AI. AI companies throw out their models and let the "community" develop the ideas what to do with them. They don't really know what they are capable of. All they do is implement these things that the dev community digs up and creates.
It's a reprehensible tactic. So why give drops of blood to a desert, when there is zero incentive and in the end you will revitalise the desert, but it will turn against you and rob you of your job.
The less restrictive ~1984 MIT early version of the software license was several years before ~1989 GPL v1.
Patents, copyrights, trade marks exist because rewarding people for their insights and inventions matters.
Reflexively, I think it should be more like ...
javascript: `This should be "You're thinking".` ;
// to preserve the original character use and to avoid '...'...' parse foos
// however `"...".` also possibly deserves a [sic] to critique the original
// i.e. ~grammar police say the period belongs within the quote marks, no?
That movie still gives me wardialing and 2600 meetups and “voice bridging from a Dennys payphone bank at silly hours” memories.
The fact is that SEO people got too good at their jobs and filled the search results with junk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_history
https://www.amazon.com/1001-Ideas-That-Changed-Think/dp/1476...
The notion that a philosopher would hoard his ideas because he wants to get money from them is pretty much antithetical to the field.
You seem to be referring to ideas as in, ideas about how AI systems should be designed.
Different scenarios, for sure.
I don't think anyone claimed that either.
> Most people go through life never doing it at all.
That's unfair to others, of course they think. They think differently than you, and about different things than you, but doesn't mean they "go through life never thinking", probably no one does that.
They should be able to fight this as well.
Problem is they are the ones funding the poor quality spam and they're in turn profiting by taking money from advertisers.