• Yewb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    All these companies need to get rid of the finance people that are running them and get back to something different I don’t care put a construction worker in charge

  • neclimdul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    You know those graphs that show a dramatic shift at a single point in time? I feel like there’s a similar graph for the quality of the internet and the dropping of do no evil.

  • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    In zero-sum games, it can be the case that short term profit is the winning choice. One example is Go.

    When AlphaGo was created and got good enough to beat world champion Go players, it did so largely by making moves that seemed to humans to be wildly aggressive and focused on small territorial positions (the game is won by surrounding territory and secondarily by capturing pieces, which reduces the opponents score). These small, highly territorial moves tend to force the human to respond locally, preventing big strategic moves, and then the AI just maintains its aggressive posture, keeping the human on defense while the AI keeps making points.

    Most humans would have ignored these small battles for territory and focused on larger, more “strategic” moves that gain regional “influence” or help create opportunities to score more points down the line. But the computer’s moves were “correct” in the sense that they won games against the best players in the world.

    BUT there’s a reason AplhaGo isn’t allowed in tournaments, for instance. So if the goal of AlphaGo was something like “be the top rated Go player”, it would have failed dramatically since it can’tplay in ranked tournaments.

    Long story short, if you’re optimizing for 1 variable, like points/wins/money, it may be only logical move to focus on aggressive incremental gains that give up other strategic objectives. So, Google is optimizing for something that is clearly incorrect from the perspective of providing the best service - but likely correct from the perspective of making the most money even at the cost of the service being worse. And Google has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits, basically guaranteeing this type of behavior

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Are search engines hard to make? An open source, white hat, search engine would be amazing. I’m not sure if I’m using the white hat term correctly, but what I mean is, a search engine that looks for real people and not corporations first. Basically, 90’s search engines.

    • usrtrv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Yes? Search engines that work well have been notoriously difficult to make. Google is one of the richest companies because 90s search engines were so dreadfully bad. The bigger the internet, the harder the problem. Working at the scale, efficiently, and giving useful information is just hard.

      Kagi is a recent company that seems to be doing a decent job.

  • Vince@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    So is the issue that they dont project far enough into the future? Or do they never correctly predict the size and impact of the negativity?