News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by yukkuri on Sunday February 18, 2024 @06:54AM (#39418329)
About the only thing he got right is the noise problem...
Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by technotarek on Sunday February 18, 2024 @07:34AM (#39418528)
Sure, but that’s huge. And probably the reason some (or at least me) are becoming so disillusioned with the web. It’s why I find it hard to believe/trust what I read from news to health advice to product reviews. The noise numbs us to the point where it all starts to feel worthless. This may be one reason ChatGPT et al feel so novel. They get rid of the noise. Of course, they are all built on the back of that noise.
Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by palata on Sunday February 18, 2024 @08:22AM (#39418838)
> This may be one reason ChatGPT et al feel so novel. They get rid of the noise.

I think I disagree. LLMs are much better at increasing the noise than they are at getting rid of it. Worse: they are really good at making it look like they get rid of the noise.

To me, LLMs have the potential to break the Web. Instead of search engines crawling the Web and allowing people to search its content, we may have to go back to trusting people: "I read this blog because I know who writes it". The day we can prove that LLMs were used to add tens of thousands of mistakes in Wikipedia (with a political agenda), will we still be able to trust Wikipedia the way we do today?

LLMs have the potential to systematically and automatically destroy the Web.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by bdw5204 on Sunday February 18, 2024 @11:04AM (#39420139)
Wikipedia policy will hopefully prevent LLM generated garbage from corrupting it because some random web site is not a "reliable source" to add "facts" to articles. Today's Wikipedia is also remarkably effective at enforcing its policies. Most of its incorrect information scandals and notable long term vandal incidents happened in the 00s when it was still new.

That's the positive side of its policies. The negative side is that it often reflects the biases of its "reliable" sources meaning it often gets the same things wrong that the mainstream media and academia get wrong.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by technotarek on Sunday February 18, 2024 @11:17AM (#39420254)
I was being specific when I chose an LLM product like ChatGPT, not LLMs generically. I do so because it is a product like ChatGPT that boils away the noise to the end user, for better or worse. That is, to grossly simplify my point, it provides a single answer / response, instead of a long list of potential garbage for which I must dig, ponder, assess etc.
Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by pasc1878 on Sunday February 18, 2024 @08:39AM (#39418977)
I have not had that experience.

Yes most of what is on the web is not trustworthy so a Google search will not show trustable sources.

Thus I look at known trustworthy sources e.g. traditional media where their biases are known. Or places like here which get some known reputation.

Reviews long established places like Consumer Reports and Which . Reviews on sites I assume most are false - but I look at negative ones and see if there are some common problems that seem reasonable.

I assume all influencers are liars or at least advertorials.

One good rule is looking how the site/author gets paid for doing what they do. If not obvious assume that it is getting clicks.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by kQq9oHeAz6wLLS on Sunday February 18, 2024 @10:12AM (#39419667)
Except pre-web you didn't have to do that, at least not to the same extent. You don't think you're affected by the noise, but the reality is you've adjusted your behavior to compensate for it. The noise changed your whole outlook.
Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by pasc1878 on Monday February 19, 2024 @04:09AM (#39427579)
Not really.

The change is being able to see many more things, ie search engines.

You still had to be aware of the biases and note which magazines did reviews and which did advertorials.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by JKCalhoun on Sunday February 18, 2024 @07:51AM (#39418620)
Really? You don't think a human teacher is better than education-by-software?

I think (given the context of 1995 when we still had land-line modems, etc.) he nailed it.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by _dain_ on Sunday February 18, 2024 @08:28AM (#39418885)
>You don't think a human teacher is better than education-by-software?

almost everything I do at work, I learned online, not from an in-person teacher

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by palata on Sunday February 18, 2024 @08:58AM (#39419119)
Did you learn to learn online, too, or did you get an education with in-person teachers?
Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by tryauuum on Sunday February 18, 2024 @10:04AM (#39419602)
yeah I got that "learning how to learn" course from coursera :)

just kidding, obviously I had to study english as a foreign language in a normal school first.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by _dain_ on Sunday February 18, 2024 @09:41AM (#39419437)
> Did you learn to learn online, too, or did you get an education with in-person teachers?

where's the dichotomy? I had an education but it's debatable how much learning happened.

the bulk of everything I know how to do is self-taught.

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by palata on Sunday February 18, 2024 @01:14PM (#39421461)
> I had an education but it's debatable how much learning happened.

Sure, it is debatable. But honestly it's hard for me to imagine giving an iPad to a 6 years old and tell them to "learn on their own".

Re:The web won't be nirvana (1995) by baq on Sunday February 18, 2024 @01:41PM (#39421735)
It's the problem. There is not a more important problem on the web.

All that crying about google results deteriorating? It's them trying to filter out exponentially more noise being generated every time unit. LLMs made it so much worse.

You want people to stop caring about something? Flood the web with plausible and crackpot arguments about it from both sides and watch people walk away from the topic in resignation. It used to cost something to pay a legion of trolls, now it takes a couple racks of GPUs and a manageable electricity bill, especially if you're a state actor.

Noise kills utility of any information channel, twitter, HN, google, the web, you name it, it suffers. He probably couldn't have predicted LLM jammers, but I worry the internet's information capacity is about to peak.