What will that mean for bona fide quality sites? I don't know but part of me hopes that those detailed sites will flourish to offer more details than can be offered in a single LLM response. Wishful thinking perhaps.
They'll be a huge backlash of course from the click-bait sites - just like with news sites protesting about losing traffic.
The people who were capable of writing those large detailed posts on subjects have most likely already moved to youtube or moved on.
The data that's actually useful to the LLM's will exist in places like Discord, reddit, twitter. It's pretty obvious that twitter and reddit are going to sell their data to the LLM companies for a lot of money.
Which leaves Discord, I would be very suspicious of anyone trying to buy Discord...
It'll be as if Gutenberg filled his books with ads for taverns and merchants and added a bit of a written content somewhere in the middle.
Ultimate hustle culture - submit, grift, or starve.
This will generate "organic" advertisement.
I probably know what you mean by quality, because we’re in the same demography: sites that offer free, unobstructed reading material and software on any subject, technical or prose. Sites maintained mainly by individuals, universities, interest groups, source forges.
There will always be a market for those sites, but they’re a little harder to find via Google lately. There was a time before Google was great, and it was an exciting time, too.
What Google will continue to do great is provide a platform for quickly finding things you can pay money for.
The only time I search Google is when I prefix the query with “buy”. I can be sure that the companies most interested in selling me this have put in ads, and price comparison and review sites have gamed the SEO.
And, in the near future, the LLMs will start encoding the 'knowledge' they learn from scraping clickbaity ad-ridden sites _that were written by LLMs_?
Soon, shady SEO firms will be offering a service to get your product placed as the answer to normal questions people ask ChatGPT etc.
And app developers are doing everything to keep them inside the app with a crappy in-app browser which also benefits the Apple/Google app store ecosystem.
Apples intention with Safari was inside the name. "Safari - you're in the African jungle, theres lions and tigers, be careful, probably best avoided."
They don't want you using it. Download an app and pay us 30% instead.
On top of this, convenience seeking users don't really seem to care. Why bother with desktops and even google search when they have apps on their phone to do stuff. Nobody even trusts the web anymore because of all the SEO content spam and potential to be scammed
It could surf a bit on already established efforts in other domains and the narrative seem to fit with those ideas I think.
If intelligently produced text content is what is needed then perhaps we need to design a format that excludes, if not automatically diminishes, images and videos
Edit: I have not heard of it before this suggestion, but it turns out that this is something that already exists.
Gemini can also be fun for some mindless browsing, but has only enough content for one or two short visis per week (for better or worse).
Nowadays 95-99% of the web is the general public which means that it has turned into what TV was - the happy happy box to keep the dummies occupied.
If we only could. I'd work for free helping to build it. Count on me.
I just think we don't have to build one. We already had it in 1998. It's still there, buried beneath the landfill.
Overall I have a pretty long pipeline for getting new sites indexed, but should improve when I finish migrating to the new server.
I thought the name "Safari" was along the lines of the early dominant browsers Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer.
But today possibly thinking closer to one of those curated tourist zoos that you drive through with your car windows rolled up, or sitting in a small train run by the place?
As for in-app webviews, they’re not all made equally. Most apps use SFSafariViewController, which is an out-of-process Safari tab with its own app-specific cookies, local storage, etc that’s designed to give the user an opportunity to see if the page is really something they want to access and helps keeps their main browser’s tabs clean while also breaking several types of trackers. Of course though some notoriously nosy players like Facebook and TikTok don’t use this and instead implement their own which is chock full of tracking crap… this is probably an area where Apple could stand to be more heavyhanded (ban custom browser reimplementations except where those add demonstrable value or the app itself is a browser).
Also, web app devs aren’t blameless in user preference for native apps. For every web app done right, there’s three more that are shoddy and frustrating in ways that native apps generally aren’t (think breaking back button, scrolljacking, etc), some that are just plain badly built, and many that are unrepentant resource hogs. Often this applies even to web apps that have no counterpart native apps because their companies chose the web solely because it’s cheap to do so (resulting in cheap bad web apps). Are there crappy native apps too? Sure, but they’re somewhat less common and generally keep the crappiness somewhat bounded.
I agree with you. But I bet people 20 years ago were saying the same about the web, people never going on the real internet just being stuck in some "www.exe"
IDK, for me it seems the worst plague are the sites that when you search for something like "how to reverse a pushed commit in git" don't give you a single sentence answer you seek, but you scroll and scroll over, what is git, how it works, why do people use it, how to install it, if you're lucky the answer will be at the very bottom after you clicked through the infuriating cookie consent and you closed two full page video ads. If you're unlucky the answer is hidden somewhere in the "content"...
Oh and comparing mobile with desktop? What is it on the desktop with all the shitty sites that try detecting you're moving to close it(often when you just move your mouse while reading) and they suddenly try to take over the entire window with some full page flashing modal dialogs. Insanity...
My take on why this happened is twofold: 1- Google, yes. 2-the stupid cookie consent law of the EU. Yes, it made launching a huge window obscuring the entire site's content on entry acceptable. It was all downhill from that.
i use chatgpt for those kinds of questions. i don't have time to read an article or select a non-spam site or even look at the stack overflow answer.
git reset --hard HEAD~2
git reflog expire --expire-unreachable=now
git push -f
...
I apologize if my previous response wasn't helpful. I see that you meant "revert" and not "reverse". I apologize that two of your commits are now gone and I understand that you mean "revert", not "reverse"? You could try
git revert HEAD
git push
Maybe I'm underestimating GPT-4 here, but when I tried to get it to write my some CLI commands, it failed in often non-obvious ways (I was trying to resize and compress an image using imagemagick).
Seemed like a waste of time to try&error with the responses, compared to looking up the documentation.
But well, man yelling at cloud I guess.
For programming and computer questions, I'm still grateful for StackOverflow and its sister sites. Finding a conprehensive answer with lots of updates and comments describing different aspects of the problem, all for exactly the question I asked, is satisfying and it feels very time-efficient too.
Stupid computer. That does 2 commits.
> git reflog expire --expire-unreachable=now
For the love of god why? The reflog is there to save your bacon. I guess because they are still reachable from the remote's reference so they won't completely vanish just yet.
> git push -f
Now they're gone unless you can find the hashes somewhere else. The objects might still be present.
> I apologize that two of your commits are now gone
Is that you or still GPT?
ChatGPT Plus with a short custom instruction to answer in steps, respond tersely, ask clarifying questions where needed, and make recommendations wherever possible replied to "how to reverse a pushed commit in git" with:
---
To reverse a pushed commit in Git, you can either use git revert or git reset. Each approach has pros and cons.
# Option 1: git revert
Pros: Safe for shared branches, creates a new commit to undo changes.
Cons: Adds noise to history.
Commands:
git revert [COMMIT_HASH]
git push origin [BRANCH_NAME]
## Soft Reset
Pros: Keeps changes in your working directory.
Cons: Rewrites history; risky for shared branches.
Commands:
git reset --soft [COMMIT_HASH]^
git commit -m "Reverting previous commit"
git push origin [BRANCH_NAME] --force-with-lease
Pros: Completely removes commit.
Cons: Rewrites history; risky for shared branches; discards changes.
Commands:
git reset --hard [COMMIT_HASH]^
git push origin [BRANCH_NAME] --force-with-lease
Use git revert for shared branches to avoid conflicts. Use git reset for local or feature branches where you control all changes. Clarify your specific scenario for a tailored recommendation.
I am sure newer GPT versions will do better, and I think for a tool as ubiquitous as git the answers from ChatGPT would have been perfectly fine too.
Just wanted to illustrate why I wouldn't mske it a habit to ask it factual questions.
The "lost two commits" answer was meant as whimsy joke. More realstic scenarios are more boring of course.
E.g. memorizing wrong explanations for solitions that happen to work, or accepting wrong answers as fact when it's inconsequential for the short term acceptance of the answer.
> git reset --soft [COMMIT_HASH]^
The docs say files are unchanged.
> git reset --soft [COMMIT_HASH]^
Committing the unchanged files so like an amend, a squash, not exactly reversing, reverting, or undoing anything except commit messages.
As replied in the sister thread, I think that the risks of trusting GPT answers can be more subtle.
The Cookie Directive was (1) much more limited in its scope, applying only to cookies and not to any other method of tracking, (2) much more limited in its compliance, requiring an explicit notice even for strictly-necessary uses, and (3) much more limited in its consumer-protection, only requiring informing the consumer and not requiring consent.
The GDPR improves on all of these, but there’s a lot of conflation between the two.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
>3. Member States shall ensure that the storing of information, or the gaining of access to information already stored, in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia, about the purposes of the processing. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.
The directive:
(1) does not target cookies, but methods to store information, or gain access to information stored;
(2) allows strictly necessary purposes without consent or popups;
(3) requires consent for other purposes.
The directive talks about cookies in recital 25, but only as an example.
The GDPR replaces the Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC), and along that, references made to it in ePrivacy. But it does not bring anything new about cookies.
Though, I agree with you: the GDPR is well made–apart from the litigation part, but that's going to change with the GDPR Procedural Regulation. ePrivacy is good too, but 5(3) aged poorly, unfortunately.
I think it can still be fixed by stipulating: if the browser sends you an X-Privacy header with some well defined content then you are not allowed to show a popup and you should use the content of that header instead. The exact content of that header needs to be fleshed out but should offer a lot of customisation to keep 90% of the people happy. I'm sure mod builders and browser makers would come up with a convenient way to set that header just once and then the problem would go away.
The only thing that works is having your user-agent mercilessly chop the survelliance shit out of web pages. Don't evaluate it, don't render it. Because thw websites will forever be hostile to your interests while they can enrich themselves by datamining you.
Voluntary self-regulation doesn't work on greedy assholes who don't care how much of the web they make unusable as long as they get an extra 0.0003¢ per page view.
It's also pretty coarse. I may want to allow a site I like to collect analytics to help them out, I may even want a search engine to keep track of my behaviour to give me better results. Just an on/off, where IE has set the default to off, was never going to work.
Many websites becomes huge apps for no reason, e-mails abuse HTML and are usually unreadable in plain/text, etc. It's not even clear to me if that makes those websites more successful or if it is just cargo cult ("we have to look modern like the others").
But users mostly don't give a shit and won't support those who e.g. don't track them and therefore don't show the cookie popup.
I don't see a way to solve this, though...
Which IMO is related to the next thing in chain:
- It was really easy to subscribe to an RSS feed in 2000s; if you had a proper meta tag in the website header, the browser UI would show up a prominent RSS logo in the URL bar. Firefox had this built-in. Apparently Chrome too [1]. At some point this was killed. Perhaps due to mobile gaining traction, lack of space on mobile, and Chrome's annoying minimalist approach? Or perhaps because Google wanted to promote its own (R.I.P.) Google Reader, (R.I.P.) Google Wave, (R.I.P.) Google+?
(Having said that, I must admit I have declared RSS bankruptcy at some point, after subscribing to _way_ too many feeds).
- I remember there used to be a lot of blog platforms and discussion boards, people would write a lot of good stuff there, each of those platforms would create a de facto community.
Then, Google managed to make Blogger/Blogspot UX terrible; and most of other platforms died and got replaced with Facebook and Twitter. (I'm still not sure why many of those seemingly thriving platforms have died).
- Facebook and Twitter over years slowly change the algo, to not show you stuff you subscribed to, but random viral crap which optimizes "engangement".
[0] https://www.chromium.org/user-experience/feed-subscriptions/
As late as late 2000, web was still pretty exclusive club. I went to college mid-2000s. Even among students, it was a geeky minority that really "consumed" internet massively.
If the web was real life, we'd have recognised this very easily.
For me the biggest cause of that spiral was the shift from most users using desktops to most users using mobile to interact with google.
In the desktop search world, google used to respond with large comprehensive articles on subjects that not just answered peoples questions but also educated them on the subject around their question. This was the golden age so to speak, it answered your question along with 10 others on a subject but also helped you to understand if your question was even the right one in the first place.
With mobile, google shifted to trying to directly answer the question you asked and nothing else, presumably because people were far less willing to read large articles on mobile and just wanted fast answers.
This latter approach is much easier to SEO garbage than the original that took real knowledge and effort to write.