Alex_V

gatorguy said:

mayfly said:

An Apple-engineered generative AI would mean I never again have to sift through the mountains of sponsored crap to find information I need or want. It would end Google's domination of search for me. And good riddance, too. The only problem I see is real-time updates to the data set. That's a massive undertaking requiring upfront capital expenditures for hardware well before any financial benefits would be realized. Lot of money, even for Apple.

When have you ever seen "sponsored crap" answers surfaced in Google's Generative AI? Any example would be nice. Perhaps Microsoft does that, but I've yet to see a single instance on Google after thousands of information searches

Dear Google’s Number One Fan,
That’s a red herring fallacy. Mayfly clearly referred to sponsored links on Google search. You responded with a rhetorical question about sponsored links on Google’s generative AI. You addressed a different point, not the point that Mayfly made — a deliberate red herring tactic.

gatorguy said:

I agree with you 100%. Notice I don't? 

...and when you identify a disingenuous statement from me call it out, just as I might call out you or someone else for dishonesty or obfuscation. So far you haven't identified anything.
When someone makes something up, or simply doesn't know any better, it seems like the right thing is point it out for the sake of the discussion, if not the forum, but that's a problem for you?  Sorry, not sorry. 

I will trust your word because I can’t verify it. So then, let’s call you “Google’s Number One Fan.”

It’s true, I make up stuff. I thought of something and wrote it down in a comment. My comment need not be the undisputed truth on a matter — I’m not an industry insider and I don’t have a crystal ball. My comment need only be interesting or useful (relevant to the real world — I hope) purely for the sake of discussion in this forum. 

I must have succeeded, if my innocuous comment about AI and Google’s future should raise such ire in “Google’s Number One Fan.” I merely reflected this titbit of evidence from the real world: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/chatgpt-caused-code-red-at-google-report-says/

gatorguy said:

Alex_V said:

AI will revolutionise search. No longer will we search for a topic for a link to a website that may or may not give us the answer, requiring us to read through mountains of text to arrive at one single nugget of information. Instead, AI will just give the answer:
Q: How to do (something)? AI: Do it like this… 
Q: How much is…? AI: X dollars.
Q: Who is this person? AI: Here is their biography… 
Q: What happened at that event? AI: This is the story of what happened… 
Q: How to cook such and such. AI: Here is the recipe… 
Q: Paint a picture of a green meadow in the early morning. AI: Here you are… 

There is a good chance that another player will emerge (is emerging) to dominate AI search. I understand that Apple is also working on AI. Google’s days are numbered, unless they can seamlessly transition to AI and continue to dominate search. 

You mean like Generative AI? 

Alex_V said:

Etc. No more listed search results, thus no more sponsored listings, and hence Google’s entire business model is at risk.

It's cute how you think all this investment in AI will come free for you. If not-Google providers of said AI search service fail to profit, which means get more money back than they spend developing it, the players won't invest in it. Business is business. If there's no ad revenue then you would have to pay for the service with real money, right?

Firstly, if you are are employed or paid directly or indirectly by Google, I think you should declare it. I’ve seen you make disingenuous arguments and obfuscations in this forum in favour of Google’s appalling form of surveillance capitalism. Maybe you don’t mind being spied on, but some of us do. I couldn’t give a rats ass about Google’s business. They aren’t a public good. They don’t have a right to exist. If AI kills Google — cool! I won’t shed any tears. 

AI will revolutionise search. No longer will we search for a topic for a link to a website that may or may not give us the answer, requiring us to read through mountains of text to arrive at one single nugget of information. Instead, AI will just give the answer:
Q: How to do (something)? AI: Do it like this… 
Q: How much is…? AI: X dollars.
Q: Who is this person? AI: Here is their biography… 
Q: What happened at that event? AI: This is the story of what happened… 
Q: How to cook such and such. AI: Here is the recipe… 
Q: Paint a picture of a green meadow in the early morning. AI: Here you are… 
Etc. No more listed search results, thus no more sponsored listings, and hence Google’s entire business model is at risk.

There is a good chance that another player will emerge (is emerging) to dominate AI search. I understand that Apple is also working on AI. Google’s days are numbered, unless they can seamlessly transition to AI and continue to dominate search.

appleinsideruser said:

Alex_V said:

12Strangers said:

I can’t believe that anyone trusts DxOMark at all, let alone calling them a “reliable source”.

I find DXO to be an excellent resource. They do highly detailed reviews on cameras and lenses, with technical analysis, and provided for free. Sites, like DXO Mark, help professionals and enthusiasts (like me) make level-headed purchasing decisions by cutting through the marketing crap that accompanies done products and brands. They give us a more nuanced understanding of the products on offer. 

Yes, always a good read. Yet if they are (selling a) coaching service to some organisations, that raises concerns about trusting their nuance.

EDIT: See final FAQ — What is DXOMARK’s relationship with device manufacturers?

You link to a question from their own website. Their answer is below. It seems that they face the usual potential conflicts of interest faced by journalists in tech or any field face. Good journalists (and there are many — I've worked with journalists who took enormous risks in doing their jobs) … manage to navigate those conflicts because maintaining impartiality and integrity is vitally important to their credibility.