Skip to content

YouTube’s new anti-adblock measures

Technology
31 28 0
  • 51 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    M
    Tragedy of the commons? Everyone wants to use it, no one wants to put forward the resources to maintain it.
  • 308 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.
  • A receipt printer cured my procrastination [ADHD]

    Technology technology
    21
    1
    120 Stimmen
    21 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    cygnosis@lemmy.worldC
    Good to know. Also an easy problem to fix. Just use phenol free paper.
  • 4 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Tribo777: Promoções e Recompensas Que Valem a Pena

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 18 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    freebooter69@lemmy.caF
    The US courts gave corporations person-hood, AI just around the corner.
  • 848 Stimmen
    133 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    A
    reminds me of the time when something with Amazon was Indian employees
  • 33 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.