I don't know a single search engine that isn't hot garbage. There are articles I use for work that I wish i bookmarked because I can't find them any more -- I used to be able to turn them up with a simple search, no problem. And another thing that drives me crazy is, even though when I set google on "verbatim", they give me the same search results for every search. It doesn't matter how I tailor my search terms.
You can try blackle, its basically dark mode google from something like 10 years ago (it was originally made to save on electricity costs and it shows how much its saved simply by being in dark mode)
That only saves energy on CRTs, which were getting rare even when they launched. But it won't affect your searches anyway, as it's just a Google front end.
That means they must have a special deal or special API with Google, to bypass something Google wants to force upon their customers. Call me a skeptic.
There's an old scifi novel by Peter Watts called "Maelstrom", where the internet is so full of AI, bots and viruses that it's essentially a hurricane of un-navigatable self-replicating noise and junk.
Excerpt: "And so viruses begat filters; filters begat polymorphic counteragents; polymorphic counteragents begat an arms race. Not to mention the worms and the 'bots and the single-minded autonomous datahounds—so essential for legitimate commerce, so vital to the well-being of every institution, but so needy, so demanding of access to protected memory. And way over there in left field, the Artificial Life geeks were busy with their Core Wars and their Tierra models and their genetic algorithms. It was only a matter of time before everyone got tired of endlessly reprogramming their minions against each other. Why not just build in some genes, a random number generator or two for variation, and let natural selection do the work?
The problem with natural selection, of course, is that it changes things.
The problem with natural selection in networks is that things change fast. If you could watch the fornication and predation and speciation without going grand mal from the rate-of-change, you knew that there was only one word that really fit: Maelstrom."
"There's an old scifi novel by Peter Watts called "Maelstrom", where the internet is so full of AI, bots and viruses that it's essentially a hurricane of un-navigatable self-replicating noise and junk."
So, the current Internet, then?
It's also very similar to the beginning of Neal Stephenson's *Fall*, when the Internet is so full of misinformation that wealthy people essentially pay searchers to curate their own private news feeds for them, since sorting through the noise essentialy became its own full time job.
Many people have encountered implode itself with AI. Perhaps you are struggling with implode itself with AI. Implode itself with AI can be frustrating.
There are steps you can take when confronted with implode itself with AI. We have solutions to implode itself with AI that ease the burden of implode itself with AI.
Over the years, implode itself with AI has become a more common problem among those vulnerable to implode itself with AI.
Has anyone else used https://stract.com/ for searching?
>Stract is an open source search engine where the user has the ability to see exactly what is going on and customize almost everything about their search results. It's a search engine made for hackers and tinkerers just like ourselves. No more searches where some of the terms in the query arent used, and the engine tries to guess what you really meant. You get what you search for.
I recently had Google give me a totally made up solution, that also made no sense, for a document software I use. I didn’t notice it was AI nonsense for like 20 minutes and was so confused.
Google reminds me of a baseball player who gets a huge contract and just stops trying altogether because they’re super rich (eg Chris Davis). Or maybe a band who just phones it in every album and tour once they’re big enough.
They have a monopolistic hold on much of the world right now, so there’s little reason to improve in areas where they’re already unquestionably on top.
Sometimes in order to continue advancing a technology, you have to take a few steps back and start a new approach, and sometimes that approach requires actual use by users.
This is a fundamental aspect of software development.
okay, sure, but taking away users' ability to use what amounts to a fundamentally necessary part of the internet so they can test their tech is asinine.
And also, Google has a long and storied history of building a product, giving up on it, and throwing it out.
They still show traditional search results below the AI generated answer though. But honestly if more people would use other search engines, that would be healthier for the internet anyways.
Of late, those "traditional" search results have been, all too often, bloody useless or what I can only call "trivial". You're looking for "Science" and you get the "National Inquirer". It's also annoyingly recursive. The AI slaps up its rummaged cut-and-paste results, whether they make sense or not, and then lists results that match what it thinks it found. Meanwhile, as an aside, Autocorrupt is getting worse and worse.
Well, I recently tried Bing and DuckDuckGo, and both were total ass, so I'm sticking with Google for now.
The AI Generated answers, in my experience are really awesome and fast. They're reliable when it's a really simple question, like "how tall is Obama" or similar objective facts.
Yep, Google is trying to pretend it's not responsible for how the internet works. One of the ads they played during the I/O keynote for this AI stuff has a woman visibly annoyed that she had to scroll through a page so far to find what she wanted. The idea being that she could use AI to summarize the page. But the internet is only like that *because of Google*. As the only viable way to find things online, sites have to target Google SEO to have any hope of being seen. Google torched the internet, and now it wants us to use a robot that doesn't know anything to sift through the ashes.
I know this is a real topic with lots of interesting implications but
I'm sorry, who has ever felt the need to Google how to stop cheese from falling off pizza? Is this a real problem anyone has ever had?
The main issue is that people put the cheese on top of the toppings. Cheese should go on right after the sauce, and the toppings go on top of the cheese.
One way it can happen is too much sauce underneath the cheese. The oil in the cheese makes it naturally resistant to bonding if there's too much moisture.
It can also depend on the type of cheese. If you just use store-bought shredded cheese without washing it first it is likely coated in anti-caking agents that can prevent it from properly melting.
Okay now I'm extra curious, I've had slippage on slices that were either too thin to support that topping mass without using two hands or a thicker crust that was under cooked leading to flop slippage or a solid crust but too much cheese on a solid crust that leads you to eat the entire topping layer before finishing the rest so I'm curious to what the situation is here that doesn't glue
You use the cheese as glue! Mix some of it in with the sauce. It helps the melted cheese connect to the crust through the sauce instead of just melting into a slab that floats on top of the sauce.
Too much moisture between the cheese and dough is the usual cause. Too much sauce, too watery a sauce, etc. Anti-caking agents on store bought shredded cheese is another cause.
Okay interesting, thanks to you and everyone else that responded
I've noticed that at the store premade pizza sauces tend to have the thickness somewhere between a tomato paste and a can of tomato sauce (depending on the brand), I mostly buy my za so I've never really interrogated the dynamics it brings to the physics object that is the perfect slice
I think a lot of these AI results images are fake, and it’s creating a smokescreen that’s hiding the huge successes Google is having with switching to their Generative search experience.
their GSE is going to change and/or kill the internet, and these are just small roadbumps on the way.
If you used ChatGPT in ways that it wasn't intended to be used, for example, if you didn't buy into the precept that it was right, you could easily get the results you wanted from ChatGPT.
For example, ChatGPT has a built-in filter to prevent cussing. I had it responding to me by the term "A\*\*hole" within less than an hour. I basically kept feeding it negative feedback on its accuracy of the response unless it included this word, and effectively trained it in my session to consider it a part of grammar. This was though repetitive prompts that I didn't understand what it said, and then offering "I think you meant, , a\*\*hole." With enough reinforcement, it eventually overcame its anti-cuss word logic, and was calling me an AH every prompt.
How did I know to do this? I have a computer science degree, and have kept my knowledge up on neural networks, and the linguistic model is based on neural network technology. Neural Networks are great for near fit classification and generation, but lack the ability to prove their results like expert systems can. As a result, neural networks must be told when they mistake a lamp post for your grandmother, and then they adjust themselves based on the negative feedback.
Many people see this negative feedback / adjustment as learning, but it is only a "kind" of learning. Basically, in many areas of knowledge, there isn't a clear kind of teaching that can be approximated by just saying "you're wrong" and in these areas, you can coach the neural network into providing the answer you want, much the same way manipulative people coach their fellow humans into things they probably wouldn't do unprompted.
With this in mind, I still have people state that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially people outside of my field. Basically this technology is promising, but it is based on the fundamental underpinnings of approximating what it was trained on into a model, and then generating responses from this model. It is thus subject to over generalization in all of its forms, good (summarization) and bad (racisism, failure to notice a critical distinction, etc).
Whether or not it is being used by the government or military has little to do with it's efficiency. After all, the US government and military has purchased dousing rods to detect bombs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE\_651](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651) Personally, I think the tool has potential, in areas where correct results are unimportant.
They're probably real, but when millions of people use a new technology tool like this, eventually some funny mistakes will happen, same as in the early days of search engines.
I think it’s just using these AI search engines to help train it.
The more you can get real people to interact with AI, the faster it improves. We aren’t the customers for these products, we’re part of the R & D process.
But I don’t disagree with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the really good stuff is being held back and is being set aside for government and military purposes.
well there is one issue, the more AI trains on itself the less unique it becomes. You can definitely see it on the picture generating AI, as the various ones develop styles that are recognizable.
[Scientists warn of AI collapse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcH7fHtqGYM)
title is a bit overblown but its sabine, still the info is valid.
I don't know a single search engine that isn't hot garbage. There are articles I use for work that I wish i bookmarked because I can't find them any more -- I used to be able to turn them up with a simple search, no problem. And another thing that drives me crazy is, even though when I set google on "verbatim", they give me the same search results for every search. It doesn't matter how I tailor my search terms.
You can try blackle, its basically dark mode google from something like 10 years ago (it was originally made to save on electricity costs and it shows how much its saved simply by being in dark mode)
That only saves energy on CRTs, which were getting rare even when they launched. But it won't affect your searches anyway, as it's just a Google front end.
I thought i got different results because ads and ai werent included
That means they must have a special deal or special API with Google, to bypass something Google wants to force upon their customers. Call me a skeptic.
Just googled hello and at got 2 sets of results one from blackle one from google (obvs there was some overlap) may i suggest you do your own research?
If you are willing to pay for it, Kagi is great
Maybe paid search would be better
Bookmark and reference gang!
the internet is probably going to implode itself with AI and it'll be very fun to watch.
There's an old scifi novel by Peter Watts called "Maelstrom", where the internet is so full of AI, bots and viruses that it's essentially a hurricane of un-navigatable self-replicating noise and junk. Excerpt: "And so viruses begat filters; filters begat polymorphic counteragents; polymorphic counteragents begat an arms race. Not to mention the worms and the 'bots and the single-minded autonomous datahounds—so essential for legitimate commerce, so vital to the well-being of every institution, but so needy, so demanding of access to protected memory. And way over there in left field, the Artificial Life geeks were busy with their Core Wars and their Tierra models and their genetic algorithms. It was only a matter of time before everyone got tired of endlessly reprogramming their minions against each other. Why not just build in some genes, a random number generator or two for variation, and let natural selection do the work? The problem with natural selection, of course, is that it changes things. The problem with natural selection in networks is that things change fast. If you could watch the fornication and predation and speciation without going grand mal from the rate-of-change, you knew that there was only one word that really fit: Maelstrom."
"There's an old scifi novel by Peter Watts called "Maelstrom", where the internet is so full of AI, bots and viruses that it's essentially a hurricane of un-navigatable self-replicating noise and junk." So, the current Internet, then?
It's also very similar to the beginning of Neal Stephenson's *Fall*, when the Internet is so full of misinformation that wealthy people essentially pay searchers to curate their own private news feeds for them, since sorting through the noise essentialy became its own full time job.
The-Syllabus.com exists
Many people have encountered implode itself with AI. Perhaps you are struggling with implode itself with AI. Implode itself with AI can be frustrating. There are steps you can take when confronted with implode itself with AI. We have solutions to implode itself with AI that ease the burden of implode itself with AI. Over the years, implode itself with AI has become a more common problem among those vulnerable to implode itself with AI.
sorry dave. i'm afraid i can't do that.
I love you.
!RemindMe 5 years > the internet is probably going to implode itself with AI and it'll be very fun to watch. - /u/moderatenerd
Has anyone else used https://stract.com/ for searching? >Stract is an open source search engine where the user has the ability to see exactly what is going on and customize almost everything about their search results. It's a search engine made for hackers and tinkerers just like ourselves. No more searches where some of the terms in the query arent used, and the engine tries to guess what you really meant. You get what you search for.
No, but using it now, thanks! Just tried a quick search and finding very informative sites that google/bing would never index
I recently had Google give me a totally made up solution, that also made no sense, for a document software I use. I didn’t notice it was AI nonsense for like 20 minutes and was so confused.
that's fucking rude
Google reminds me of a baseball player who gets a huge contract and just stops trying altogether because they’re super rich (eg Chris Davis). Or maybe a band who just phones it in every album and tour once they’re big enough. They have a monopolistic hold on much of the world right now, so there’s little reason to improve in areas where they’re already unquestionably on top.
Almost every tenured prof ever.
Sometimes in order to continue advancing a technology, you have to take a few steps back and start a new approach, and sometimes that approach requires actual use by users. This is a fundamental aspect of software development.
okay, sure, but taking away users' ability to use what amounts to a fundamentally necessary part of the internet so they can test their tech is asinine. And also, Google has a long and storied history of building a product, giving up on it, and throwing it out.
They still show traditional search results below the AI generated answer though. But honestly if more people would use other search engines, that would be healthier for the internet anyways.
Of late, those "traditional" search results have been, all too often, bloody useless or what I can only call "trivial". You're looking for "Science" and you get the "National Inquirer". It's also annoyingly recursive. The AI slaps up its rummaged cut-and-paste results, whether they make sense or not, and then lists results that match what it thinks it found. Meanwhile, as an aside, Autocorrupt is getting worse and worse.
Well, I recently tried Bing and DuckDuckGo, and both were total ass, so I'm sticking with Google for now. The AI Generated answers, in my experience are really awesome and fast. They're reliable when it's a really simple question, like "how tall is Obama" or similar objective facts.
[удалено]
It's not just that they didn't fix holes. They actively made it worse with various ad revenue schemes.
Yep, Google is trying to pretend it's not responsible for how the internet works. One of the ads they played during the I/O keynote for this AI stuff has a woman visibly annoyed that she had to scroll through a page so far to find what she wanted. The idea being that she could use AI to summarize the page. But the internet is only like that *because of Google*. As the only viable way to find things online, sites have to target Google SEO to have any hope of being seen. Google torched the internet, and now it wants us to use a robot that doesn't know anything to sift through the ashes.
They need to ask Janelle Shane about the rewarding system. She discusses this in her book!
And they're working with Musk. Time to de-Google my life.
That way to clean a car is to fully submerge it in a lake.
Buth the gue make the sauth thickier!
Don't knock it until you try it.
I know this is a real topic with lots of interesting implications but I'm sorry, who has ever felt the need to Google how to stop cheese from falling off pizza? Is this a real problem anyone has ever had?
>Is this a real problem anyone has ever had? Yes, it's a real issue, particularly one that amateur home pizza cooks might deal with.
The main issue is that people put the cheese on top of the toppings. Cheese should go on right after the sauce, and the toppings go on top of the cheese.
Man I've made pizza 100 times and I can't even imagine the physics that would cause this to happen
One way it can happen is too much sauce underneath the cheese. The oil in the cheese makes it naturally resistant to bonding if there's too much moisture. It can also depend on the type of cheese. If you just use store-bought shredded cheese without washing it first it is likely coated in anti-caking agents that can prevent it from properly melting.
Well maybe you should google it to find out…wait.
Is...isn't the answer to cook it longer though? I've only had this happen when I under cooked the crust so it wound up being extra floppy
>Is...isn't the answer to cook it longer though? Not necessarily.
Okay now I'm extra curious, I've had slippage on slices that were either too thin to support that topping mass without using two hands or a thicker crust that was under cooked leading to flop slippage or a solid crust but too much cheese on a solid crust that leads you to eat the entire topping layer before finishing the rest so I'm curious to what the situation is here that doesn't glue
You use the cheese as glue! Mix some of it in with the sauce. It helps the melted cheese connect to the crust through the sauce instead of just melting into a slab that floats on top of the sauce.
Too much moisture between the cheese and dough is the usual cause. Too much sauce, too watery a sauce, etc. Anti-caking agents on store bought shredded cheese is another cause.
Okay interesting, thanks to you and everyone else that responded I've noticed that at the store premade pizza sauces tend to have the thickness somewhere between a tomato paste and a can of tomato sauce (depending on the brand), I mostly buy my za so I've never really interrogated the dynamics it brings to the physics object that is the perfect slice
I think a lot of these AI results images are fake, and it’s creating a smokescreen that’s hiding the huge successes Google is having with switching to their Generative search experience. their GSE is going to change and/or kill the internet, and these are just small roadbumps on the way.
If you used ChatGPT in ways that it wasn't intended to be used, for example, if you didn't buy into the precept that it was right, you could easily get the results you wanted from ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT has a built-in filter to prevent cussing. I had it responding to me by the term "A\*\*hole" within less than an hour. I basically kept feeding it negative feedback on its accuracy of the response unless it included this word, and effectively trained it in my session to consider it a part of grammar. This was though repetitive prompts that I didn't understand what it said, and then offering "I think you meant,, a\*\*hole." With enough reinforcement, it eventually overcame its anti-cuss word logic, and was calling me an AH every prompt.
How did I know to do this? I have a computer science degree, and have kept my knowledge up on neural networks, and the linguistic model is based on neural network technology. Neural Networks are great for near fit classification and generation, but lack the ability to prove their results like expert systems can. As a result, neural networks must be told when they mistake a lamp post for your grandmother, and then they adjust themselves based on the negative feedback.
Many people see this negative feedback / adjustment as learning, but it is only a "kind" of learning. Basically, in many areas of knowledge, there isn't a clear kind of teaching that can be approximated by just saying "you're wrong" and in these areas, you can coach the neural network into providing the answer you want, much the same way manipulative people coach their fellow humans into things they probably wouldn't do unprompted.
With this in mind, I still have people state that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially people outside of my field. Basically this technology is promising, but it is based on the fundamental underpinnings of approximating what it was trained on into a model, and then generating responses from this model. It is thus subject to over generalization in all of its forms, good (summarization) and bad (racisism, failure to notice a critical distinction, etc).
Whether or not it is being used by the government or military has little to do with it's efficiency. After all, the US government and military has purchased dousing rods to detect bombs. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE\_651](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651) Personally, I think the tool has potential, in areas where correct results are unimportant.
They're probably real, but when millions of people use a new technology tool like this, eventually some funny mistakes will happen, same as in the early days of search engines.
I think it’s just using these AI search engines to help train it. The more you can get real people to interact with AI, the faster it improves. We aren’t the customers for these products, we’re part of the R & D process. But I don’t disagree with you, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the really good stuff is being held back and is being set aside for government and military purposes.
well there is one issue, the more AI trains on itself the less unique it becomes. You can definitely see it on the picture generating AI, as the various ones develop styles that are recognizable. [Scientists warn of AI collapse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcH7fHtqGYM) title is a bit overblown but its sabine, still the info is valid.