• jaamulberry @beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    Counter point. I would wager people are more productive scrolling 5 minutes through a Facebook post then taking a 30 minute coffee break talking to various coworkers. I would hate this. Also if you’re a developer how would you research something? No stack overflow? No access to forums to solve particular problems? Not sure this is sustainable.

    • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Losing access to language reference docs would be huge. What are they gonna do, save them all locally? Maintain copies of those sites on the company intranet, at the company’s expense? What happens when the next version of Python is released?

      This is a real cut the nose the spite the face move. Google would hemorrhage developers.

      • Phoenix [she/they]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, Google does index and cache most webpages internally already. So yeah, maybe. But after reading the article it doesn’t sound like they’re doing that.

        • HarkMahlberg@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean let’s say they solve that part, sure. Let’s go back to Google’s original intent for this maneuver: they want to beef up “security.”

          Ars Technica’s sub-title line says “You can’t get hacked if you aren’t on the Internet.” That is utter nonsense. I’ll take “What is E-Mail?” for 500 Alex. Surely they wouldn’t block EMAIL right? How would they communicate with vendors, partners, governments, etc? Does Google think phishing emails, ransomware, etc don’t work if you don’t have internet access?

          • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually, most email malware is staged now, so it wouldn’t work. PDFs with the malware embedded get flagged, so PDFs with a link to the malware replaced them. Even most ransomware is via an external link.

      • Mischala
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t Google your obscure package’s runtime error? Guess you aren’t gonna do anything of value for the rest of the day.

      • wim@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why not? They already do for the vast majority of this stuff. It’s not that much and releases of these things are structured and indexed everywhere anyway.

      • The Doctor@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Storing local copies of docs is a thing some companies do. I’ve worked at a couple of places that did that. And when the next version of $foo is released, and the devs get the go-ahead to use it, wget gets executed to make a new copy. Sucks, but that’s the threat model in some places.

      • abhibeckert@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I had access to a good LLM, that’d be enough for 99% of my research. And the other 1% I could probably do on a phone.

        • aksdb@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          LLMs produce text. They don’t answer questions. If the probability of the keywords in the question are being used in correlation with the answer often enough, it might (re)produce the actual answer. But you can never be sure.

          LLMs are not a source for information.

    • Mischala
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jones on them, half of their developers coffee comes from stack overflow.

      Rip productivity