> If the SERPs are filled with garbage

That's already the case. GPT-3 might be faster, but there's literally millions of humans producing absolute garbage for pennies. I'm talking 1000 word, quite readable articles (that make little sense if you pay close attention) for $5 or less.

Used to be a time when it was really easy to rank at the top with just that kind of content.

But Google managed to filter all that out, for the most part. Pretty sure they can deal with computer generated text, too.

I guess one way Google filters out the junk articles is that people who read them don't end their search, and keep looking for the same information after visiting the useless, wordy stuff.

Yeah they used to track time on site (with Google Analytics or if the user clicks the "back" button), probably still do.

Hyperlinks still play an important role - if someone links to the article's URL, that automatically increases its rank. No one links to trash. Links from known spam websites will downrank the article or the whole website really fast.

Timestamps used to be abused back when Google preferred the newest stuff - just update it every day or hour and it's the freshest article in the world in Googlebot's eyes.

It's a really impressive piece of technology, and they have a ton of experience fighting abuse on their SERPs - it's happening constantly and it will continue to as long as search engines exist.

Why would they want to keep out GPT-3 spam? They're probably already looking at how they can drive engagement by having human users argue with bots they run.

Because their users don't want to read GPT-3 spam. If that's the dominant form of content on those platforms, people are going to use those platforms less.

I mean, for a while Facebook may get paid for presenting ads to GPT-3 spam bots, but eventually advertisers will catch on that the people are gone.

I can't wait for us to train models on user browser behavior.

Maybe we can unleash bots that appear exactly as humans, ruining the advertiser gravy train forever.

Mark my words: if that even looks like that might happen, the advertising behemoths (chiefly Google and Facebook) will spend every last dollar trying to get some kind of human Internet ID program passed into law.

If our weapons (programs, scripts, "AI") become half as effective as theirs (the advertising giants'), they'll drop nine-plus figures paying to have ours outlawed, guaranteed. The only thing that might save us from that in the US is that national ID of any sort is pretty unpopular across party lines, and that's effectively what it'd be.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're already quietly laying the groundwork for such an effort.

"national ID of any sort"

In the US it's not possible to catch a flight across the country or obtain a loan without providing your SSN. And the SSN was originally, extra-explicitly, not allowed to be used for anything but administering social security benefits.

Exactly. It's a terrible tool for that job and wasn't designed for it, but there's such a great need for something like that, that businesses and governments have grabbed onto it anyway, for lack of something better.

Despite what might be described as an absolutely huge market signal that there's desire and need for this, resistance to actual national ID is so high among elected officials that propositions for it have, so far, always been DOA. Maybe national IDs really are terrible and it's worth the shared-over-the-population pain and expense not having one causes in a modern society and economy, IDK.

Then maybe a privately-issued national ID is the answer, for those that want it. That's the proper response to a market signal, no?

Indeed, there must be some reason no such thing has materialized from the market, despite ongoing problems caused by its absence.

I'd guess it's one of those things where network effects make it hard to get off the ground, and given the nature of it, especially hard to get off the ground without government buy-in from the beginning, as so many of the ways it'd be useful for saving time and money and reducing risk are tied to interaction with the government. If a market-based solution for it were desirable, for whatever reason, defining some clear and interoperable standard at the government level would probably be necessary to make the market viable, no matter how much latent demand there may be.

Further, imagining the user experience of a non-heavily-regulated/standardized ID market, it seems like it'd necessarily be so hellishly bad it'd never gain adoption. Having 5 different IDs and sometimes having to get new ones or drop an old one seems no better than using credit cards and our social security numbers as IDs, like we do now. It seems to me the epitome of something that can't possibly be any good as a market solution, unless it's so monopolized or regulated that it's indistinguishable from a government solution, except somewhat less straightforward.

I don't know what Facebook you've been using, but millions of people appear to love nothing better than responding to low-grade content mills that push their emotional buttons.

The idea that "You won't believe what <popular/unpopular> celebrity said!" or "Trump outrage #942134!" gets tons of engagement when written by a human, but will make people leave if it's generated by an algorithm is hard for me to square with the social media landscape that actually exists.

Exactly, I think it's a problem only if it leads to lower "engagement" by humans. I kinda doubt it will. Most reading and writing that occurs on the Web, by a large margin, is already very low-value, not noticeably better than a near-future "AI" will very likely be able to produce.

If ad impressions & clicks don't drop, Google, FB, and others won't give a shit where the content's coming from. If impressions & clicks go up (not an unlikely outcome, I'd say) they'll even encourage it.

GPT-3 is more of an existential threat to Google because of its bias. It could be a much more efficient search engine than Google.