580
Google is cannibalizing the web to feed AI
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
580 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
84940 readers
3926 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The death of Stackoverflow is one of these events where the site has been completely killed by AI and yet its contents is completely necessary for AI to know about solving programming problems. Its death will mark the end of AIs ability to learn how to solve programming issues. Its cannibalizing itself in the process, as it destroys its sources it destroys its own ability to learn.
There would be a wisdom in AI companies fighting to NOT have their products in use on websites that produce the best handle content for them to eat.
It's not just that, it's shitting where it eats. People are using it to fill the internet with disinformation, then it trains itself on it's own disinformation, and breeds even worse disinformation. This is why AI can never be smarter than it was in 2021.
On top of that, due to the indiscriminate DDOSing of the entire internet by AI bots, websites have been blocking any web crawlers that are not Google, which just contributes to their monopoly.
You're completely wrong. First of all, datasets are getting bigger and objectively better. Secondly, technologies and methods of model training become dramatically more complex. Yes, AI content can create echo for itself, but it's a solvable issue.
Anyone who disagrees with this fact should do a reality check and learn a little more about the current AI state. In 2021 we didn't even have reasoning in models.
The model architecture will still improve obviously. But the quality of the training data has been irreversibly altered and will only get worse with time.
It would be true if dataset’s composing mechanism was nothing but a blind internet scraping.
But it’s not so simple. There’s many hundreds of quality and trust filters that were created solely to prevent such things. As I said, it’s a solvable issue, even if most folks here really believe that the smartest AI was buried somewhere in 2021
I see someone's been suckling the OpenAI teet.
What it have to do with OpenAI? It’s not what I’m talking about.
Nonetheless, it’s kind of fun to see so much downvotes on my comment. Some people are so blinded by their hate (well deserved, by the way) that they will deny something that obvious.
Model collapse isn't a thing anymore. https://arxiv.org/html/2510.16657v1
Lol, so to make a great model, they just need to have an even better one available first or a human who can verify every single thing it ingests.
Hmm, call me skeptical on this claim.
Yeah if you have a source of truth then your model is basically getting trained on that.
It’s like already having the answer
The point is that it only needs to comprise a very small part of the model.
My point was that having a verifier means your not really training a model on another model’s data, it’s basically as if you get new raw data from a non AI source
This assumes everything is valid on the external. If one slop cluster feeds off another - a slopveyor? - then there is nothing external for the validation hall-monitor to compare against. They're trusting another model's output as if it were gospel.
LOL OK
I'm pretty sure AI is objectively smarter today than it was 5 years ago.
Objectively + smarter, huh.
It is not alive and cannot really think, so I doubt it's smarter. It likely contains a bit more knowledge and a better interconnected network for it
Whether said knowledge is of better quality than 5 years ago is up for debate though.
Since LLMs literally can't learn, no. They're just increasingly tweaked to seem even more convincing.
Actually it just appears smarter because people are objectively dumber than they were 5 years ago. "AI" is actually stagnate.
There's better integration with all sorts of other sources of truth beyond the LLM training, which makes it seem smarter.
How can something with no intelligence be smarter?
It is evident that it has intelligence, it outputs intelligent responses usually adequate to its input, even if it’s badly phrased. What it doesn’t have is sentience, conscience, and a learning loop.
Evident to whom exactly?
This is true, depending on what you mean by smarter. They are undeniably more capable. However, the trendy, cool things is to hate on AI, rejecting all else. Sure, capitalism sucks, and the powerful rich people and companies who control AI suck. AI itself, though, can very easily result in massive benefits for humanity as a whole.
"AI" is garbage generator, that consumes our resources to output mediocre slop. Case in point is your PFP.
It's neither "trendy" nor "cool", just common opinion, as more and more people get to try it and see how useless it actually is, for anything beyond average (often empirically wrong) output.
Recent LLMs are very capable at doing almost all simple computing tasks. At some point in the future, we will have AI that is more generally useful than current LLMs. If and when we have truly general purpose AI, it could benefit humanity in countless ways. It could also continue to cause harm. We can’t know for sure.
I know, for sure.
You truly don’t, though. You believe it. That doesn’t make it true. We do not have enough data to know what the future holds regarding AI.
-- You. Just now.
Full self driving next year.
We already have it
Sure you do. In your colony on Mars.
How fucking gullible can you get, jfc.
I’ve been in vehicles with self-driving, and they perform better than the average driver in every situation I’ve encountered.
You seem like a really angry person. I’m sorry your experiences in life are so miserable.
Wow, even a personal anecdote! That's, like, irrefutable! (since you didn't really understand what I'm saying, I'll clarify - this was a Musk/Tesla reference)
Listen, next year I'm curing cancer and solving world hunger, thus making ""AI"" obsolete. Care to invest?
Until then, it's best if we evaluate technology at its current standing. Which is garbage generator that requires way too much resources.
A personal anecdote is all that’s needed to refute a blanket statement like the implication that self-driving does not exist yet.
Again, it seems you are just a really upset and negative person. I feel bad for you. It would be very easy to have a pleasant discussion or debate on the topic.
If we only ever evaluated technology on its present state of being, we wouldn’t have planes for instance. That’s not a really sound methodology. “It doesn’t work now. Therefore, it should be abandoned.” Like, what?
Though, perhaps what you mean is “we shouldn’t be investing billions in unproven technology.” That, I agree with. I think most would.
It seems that youre just a really dumb and uneducated person. I feel bad for you.
Now that we've got ad-hominems out of the way, let's get back on the topic.
Damn, I really thought I explained the self-driving thing, but it just bounced off you, didn't it. Reaping the effects of AI so soon, huh.
If you think that's how design and engineering works, you're either 12, or really into LLMs.
Look, I'll put it really simply for you. I know that if I throw a ball forwards, it will land in front of me. I call predict it, and I can calculate it. It's based on established laws of physics.
If people, who want to sell me a pig, tell me it's going to fly next year after I buy it, based on the fact that it learned to walk, that is not a prediction based "on sound methodology".
Enjoy your slop, it's not going to get any better, and it's going to get ALOT more expensive very soon. That's a prediction, after evaluating current technology.
I am far from dumb. I got 60/60 problems correct on a proctored Raven’s Progressive Matrices as a teenager. That places my pattern recognition much higher than most of the world’s population. I taught myself C++ when I was six years old in 1997.
You’ve created a strawman by recasting my argument to a point that I am not making. I did not say “trust vendor promises” or “ignore current failures.” I said present-state-only evaluation is a bad way to judge emerging technology.
Engineering forecasting is not limited to closed-form physics. It also uses empirical progress, deployment data, cost curves, failure modes, and observed capability gains. Your pig analogy only works if AI had no demonstrated utility and no measurable improvement. That is plainly false.
Criticize cost, energy use, incentives, etc. Those are real arguments. But “some promises are hype, therefore the whole field is slop and cannot improve” is not analysis. It is just cynicism with insults attached.
Wow, I'm very impressed. Reads like billionaire's wiki page.
Analogy absolutely works. The pig could not walk when it was born, now it can. Which means that next year it'll fly.
Exactly the same type predictions are advertised for LLMs. It can't count to 10, but a text predictor will be able to find cure for cancer.
If you're as smart as you claim you are, you'd go read a few papers on the limitations of the technology as a whole. "It will get better" / "It's in its infancy" is just pure bullshit. There will be optimizations and gains here and there. But the core technology is not capable of producing what is being promised.
Pig will not fly, I'm affraid, even though it might be able to make do a hop next year.
That’s some pretty absurd logic. It is clear there is no point in continuing this discussion, as you are too easily trapped by logical fallacies and are too quick to jump to insults. Hopefully you can take some time to try to grow as a person.
The field of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence does not depend on the success of Large Language Models, and LLMs quite possibly have reached their limits. I do not see that as relevant.
Nice goalpost move.
"In the future, "AI" will be a completely different technology".
Lol, why do I even bother discussing things with techbros... Spare the "insults" part, you're the one who started that.
No, it will be the same field of technology. LLMs are just a facet of AI, currently. I’m done having this discussion with you, as you do not have the capability to grasp rational thought or have a rational discussion.
And, no. You started the insults. I responded with a couple.
More capable doesnt mean its smarter. A hammer can be made to be more capable but that doesn't make it smart.
That’s not 1:1, and like I said, it depends on what you mean by smarter.
And yet, they have not created the AI that could do without it. Any day now, promise!