zlacker

People seem to forget: AI is about data, the ability to process it, and having a few smart folks to do algorithms. The third part is actually the smallest and easiest part of the trilogy for AI.

Google, has all three. The real question is can they not shoot themselves in the foot while doing it.

Also SEO will always target the market leader.

As far as Bing's results: I keep thinking Google is trashy. Then I use Bing and I remember just how good Google is. That's my personal opinion. I am NOT going to claim they are SEO, and spam immune, far from. But they seem to do better than Bing in getting what I mean right.

ChatGPT may help MS, but is it a bandaid? Is it just a good PR bump? Who knows... Displacing Google is a large task.. and not one I'm sure I want MS to win. But I look forward to them trying, if only to make Google do better.

>>ilc+(OP)
> People seem to forget: AI is about data, the ability to process it, and having a few smart folks to do algorithms. The third part is actually the smallest and easiest part of the trilogy for AI.

MS has them all three too.

And since, as you say, the algorithm part is not the most difficult part, others may enter the playing field soon (we already have DDG and Kagi, for example, with Kagi now experimenting with LLMs too).

>>ameliu+l4
The compute side needs to be solved with money. That may be a hurdle for DDG/Kagi.

MS has the money. Data is by far and away the hardest part, and DDG's own privacy policies etc will hurt it here, alas.

Personally, I think it is Google's race to win. But they have to DO it. If I start getting better results off DDG or Bing, I'll switch. I'm fickle, and own no loyality to Google.

I just want my StackExchange answers faster, before Google Coder, and Co-Pilot replace me. /s

>>ilc+(OP)
> Then I use Bing and I remember just how good Google is.

I use a lot Ecosia (which gets results from Bing) due to them allegedly planting trees and being much more heavily into privacy.

My experience with Ecosia, thus Bing, is that for the overwhelming majority of searches (90% plus) the quality is comparable.

When you get into more niche searches Bing offers better results 1 out of 5 times and worse results 4 out of 5, with a worrying amount of those 4 being almost complete misses.

I still need to get onto Google occasionally when I don't find what I was looking for on Ecosia.

>>ilc+(OP)
Google is without a doubt worse for me than ever. But is it really google? Or is it just the absolute cesspool of SEO-optimized ad driven garbage that represents a growing portion of it?

The other searches are worse. I too have tried. But in general I'm frustrated with Google now more than I've ever been.

>>ilc+H9
I think enough people will get sick enough of the ads that they will be willing to pay a few bucks a month to avoid it.

>>juve19+PO
This is really the core of my disappointment in Google: their poor handling of malicious SEO. Having humans go over shared site blocklists that people use to improve results, hand verify each entry, and remove those sites from Google results would go a long, long way.

I'm talking about lists like these: https://github.com/quenhus/uBlock-Origin-dev-filter/blob/mai...

It wouldn't take a small team more than a few weeks to get through these lists -- most of the work has already been done.

Alternatively, they could just let us add these lists to a first-party interface so we don't have to use plugins to achieve the same results.

>>dpkirc+jH1
I think this will be a key differentiator, Google has been so obsessed with automation that it's painted itself in a corner when that automation is inadequate. Microsoft doesn't have a problem with doing things that don't scale when needed.