• kitnaht@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The content is not unavailable to search engines. AI LLMs simply are better at surfacing it. I don’t know what point you were trying to make that I missed, it wasn’t on purpose, I assure you.

    • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      AI LLMs simply are better at surfacing it

      Ok, but how exactly? Is there some magical emergent property of LLMs that guides them to filter out the garbage from the quality content?

      • kitnaht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yeah. Money. Google has an incentive to make search results less accurate to get you to click around and interact with more ads. As it currently stands, AI models aren’t inserting advertisements; though I suspect that’s only a matter of time.

        • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          And that’s more or less what I was aiming for, so we’re back at square one. What you wrote is in line with my first comment:

          it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines

          The point is that there isn’t something that makes AI inherently superior to ordinary search engines. (Personally I haven’t found AI to be superior at all, but that’s a different topic.) The difference in quality is mainly a consequence of some corporate fuckery to wring out more money from the investors and/or advertisers and/or users at the given moment. AI is good (according to you) just because search engines suck.