Technology

59565 readers

4319 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

526

Google is no longer asking — feed the AI or you’re not in search results (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 3 months ago by homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

101 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://awful.systems/post/2178630

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If it's just that and links to the source, I think it's OK.

No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation.

This has already happened and continues to happen.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

That was the argument with the text snippets from news sources. Publishers successfully lobbied for laws to be passed in many countries that required search engine operators to pay fees. It backfired when Google removed the snippets from news sources that demanded fees from Google. Their visitors dropped by a massive amount, 90% or so, because those results were less attractive to Google users to click on than the nicer results with a snippet and a thumbnail. So "No one will click on the source" has already been disproven 10 or so years ago when the snippet issue was current. All those publishers have entered a free of charge licensing agreement with Google and the laws are still in place. So Google is fine, upstart search engines are not because those cannot pressure the publishers into free deals.

This has already happened and continues to happen.

With Gemini?

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It's minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn't require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.

With Gemini?

Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

The context is not the same.

It's not the same but it's similar enough when, as the article states, it is solely about short summaries. The article may be wrong, Google may be outright lying, maybe, maybe, maybe.

Google, as by far the web's largest ad provider, has a business incentive to direct users towards the web sites, so the website operators have to pay Google money. Maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see the business sense in Google not doing that and so far I don't see anything approximating convincing arguments.

Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

Licensed and public domain content, of which there is plenty, maybe even content specifically created by Google to train the data. "the Gemini model understands language" in itself hardly is proof of any wrongdoing. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge or memory, so it's certainly possible that I missed more specific evidence but "the Gemini model understands language" by itself definitively is not.