Depends on what you consider a reverse mortgage/equity loan they plan to die before paying.

Again, for people who actually used the internet in 2010, I don't believe this is a real sentiment.

OR

It's never really been farther, either.

It is especially so the farther you stray from things the average person wants to know. The beauty of Old Internet and Old Google was that it connected you with niche experts, and quickly, instead of a hyper-compressed bag of guardrails quasi-possibility (if you have enough credits) over a grueling campaign of "placate the robot's idiosyncrasies".

Do you know what inspired this post? A 10-minute odyssey of asking Google Search's AI for help finding a particular option on a particular website. Every response after the first began with, "My mistake, you're right," and at the end, I still didn't have the answer.

You're targeting the efficacy, not the means. Google reached almost every page, served dynamically or not, with metadata and cache freely viewable, and served a relevant slice based on the actual search query that was actually submitted. We can do that again. It would piss off a lot of platform owners. I don't care. I want it back. Fuck Zuck.

>Even without that kagi exists and it’s fine

No lol

Of course you can. But Google actually has to want to provide that. They don't.

>I much prefer Google today than in 2010

I don't believe that this is a genuine sentiment held by real people.

If you thought it was a golden age back then, you must just not have been able to keep up. Google "made a deal" with SEO about 10 years ago and those elements basically run it now (enshittification via aligned interests).

That's where you're wrong. And I'd like to see a service that stops making these asinine decisions for me.

When you start chopping the web into pieces, the temptation to hide uncomfortable material rises exponentially, and the definition of "uncomfortable" slowly shambles from "the truly depraved or obnoxious" towards "Hays Code", or worse. Give us the firehose and maybe we'll develop the tools to filter it as we see fit.

A hypothetical US gov't, benevolent and markedly less corrupt than the current one, passes a Constitutional amendment to nationalize Alphabet, with the express intent to return Google Search to 2010 levels of efficacy and to remove all LLM functions from both its frontend and backend.

I guess what I'm really asking is what people would abide to have the internet back, via a search solution that actually works and whose usefulness hasn't been annihilated by ~15 years of cynical corporate marauding and product torture.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49985180

Points: 8

# Comments: 44

2) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49956015

I'm well aware of the labor issues, and agree that the use of AI to displace workers is fraught at best, easily transcending to a sort of banal evil under common circumstances.

3) The problem isn't that people have reasonable, rational, and principled stands against how the AI industry has developed. It's that there are also irrational and unreasonable takes that end in, "Literally kill anyone tainted by genAI," and that the vociferous and zealous nature of this opposition is driven in part by fearmongers with links to corporate interests who happily use homespun AI (just don't call it that!); or who are, at the very least, protecting their own economic moat without being up-front that their opposition is largely self-interested (as was the case with anti-AI's direct antecedent, anti-crypto).

I've seen too many real artists crucified by "real artists" and their sycophants for experimenting with or working into their practice these tools.

It does not read as a principled stand, but a tantrum. You can compare the reaction of such artists to that of mathematicians, who were hit not merely with a nebulous sense that the big AI companies were doing them dirty, or enabling others to do so, but an actual verifiable instance of one platform stealing their work and attempting to publish it in official channels without attribution. They are angry, they are doing some soul-searching, but they are not excommunicating AI users or calling for their heads.

Conversely, I've been heartened by the rise of anti-data center activism, because it means that people are actually doing something productive towards the ends they profess a desire for, rather than just bitching and witch-hunting online.

But wait, how can someone who is defending AI usage be happy to see data center projects fail? Could there be actual nuance to their perspective? Life has many doors, Ed-boy.

Also solves a lot of problems with (long-term) unemployment.

That is orthogonal to the issue of game developers exploiting technology to disenfranchise labor and produce a shoddy product. There certainly should be economic breathing room in the richest societies on the planet in the wealthiest era of human history for artists to spend time crafting work how they like.

I don't know much about this subject, specifically, but I struggle to think of examples where, "Foreign merchants controlled the economy," turned out well, and plenty where, "They killed all the foreign merchants," was the outcome. So to see a characterization like, "Before they killed everyone, the relationship was great"... It feels like there's something missing; maybe a bit of awareness. Great for who?

>Prior to the LA riots the relationship between the stores and the customers was pretty good, in fact the property owners were quite heavily down with it and the economy dominated by Korean merchants.

>Prior to the American/Haitian/French Revolution the relationship between the landowners/monarchy and laborers/colonists was pretty good.

Also, you might not be on the right website.

If you treat students like prisoners, they'll act like prisoners, including doing things like assaulting the "guards." If "each unhappy family is unhappy in their own way," strict, blanket edicts aren't going to solve the individual issues each child is going through.