Skip to content

Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

Technology
205 127 0
  • 310 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.
  • 43 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 50 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    B
    I hate that both trademarks exist, but I'd say using a name form a Tolkien work to develop weapons is especially wrong. Like, abject.
  • 278 Stimmen
    100 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    F
    It's not just skills, it's also capital investment.
  • Pocket shutting down

    Technology technology
    2
    2 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    B
    Can anyone recommend a good alternative? I still use it to bookmark most wanted sites.
  • Microsoft Teams will soon block screen capture during meetings

    Technology technology
    43
    305 Stimmen
    43 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    D
    No but, you can just close it.
  • 553 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    swelter_spark@reddthat.comS
    Yeah, I don't prefer that. But with some things I feel like it's barely a downside, and I'd put Boxes into that category. It's useful and well-designed enough in terms of functionality that I'm willing to overlook the Gnominess.
  • WhatsApp provides no cryptographic management for group messages

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    17 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    S
    Just be sure to add only the people you want to be there. I've heard some people add others and it's a bit messy