Skip to content

Bill Gates and Linus Torvalds meet for the first time.

Technology
43 36 0
  • New "subguides" on my guide to Pocket alternatives

    Technology technology
    1
    5 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 311 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    9 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.
  • Is Matrix cooked?

    Technology technology
    54
    100 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    W
    Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then. it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs. I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???) if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user
  • 27 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 57 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    avidamoeba@lemmy.caA
    [image: c1b6d049-afed-4094-a09b-5af6746c814f.gif]
  • You are Already On "The List"

    Technology technology
    2
    47 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    M
    Even if they're wrong. It's too late. You're already on the list. .... The only option is to destroy the list and those who will use it
  • 1 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    N
    that's probably not true. I imagine it was someone trying to harm the guy. a hilarious prank