Statistics seem to be 20-25% of all search is for porn. I just don't see how uncensored chatGPT doesn't beat out the censored version eventually.
Statistics seem to be 20-25% of all search is for porn. I just don't see how uncensored chatGPT doesn't beat out the censored version eventually.
A search engine that only returns results politically aligned with its creator is a bad search engine, IMO, even for users who generally share political views with the creator.
There are hidden biases in the sense that the provider (Google, etc) would probably prefer that its users don’t think about the bias. These can be political (e.g. much of what you’ve mentioned), but they can also be economic. For example, Google has a strong incentive to direct its search users to view paid impressions of ads served by Google. As an extension of this, Google might not want to directly favor results monetized by Google, but they could (and, I assume, do) favor the kinds of results monetized by Google. This, of course, includes the kinds of sites that might get people to buy things.
So I suspect that a lot of what we perceive as spam is related to a bias for the kinds of sites that are monetized in a way that benefits Google. And sites that generate viewing patterns that result in many ad impressions.
Of course, spam is also a thing from a spamminess perspective. But Google’s incentive to reduce spam is, as far as I can tell, primarily an incentive to make its users think that Google Search is useful. Which is also a bias!
OpenAI is predictably pushing the narrative that they should police themselves, and they need to keep the sauce secret for everyone’s safety. New tech comes with challenges, but the opaque moderation and corporate self-policing is more dangerous than the tech itself, imo.
Put another way, were you just trying to say “I don’t think politics is the main issue of google’s crappy search results, I think it’s the likes of differencebetweendotcom”?