579
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
579 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
84940 readers
3705 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
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.
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.
Since LLMs literally can't learn, no. They're just increasingly tweaked to seem even more convincing.
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.
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.
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.