[bentona]

To me, the most interesting implication here is that this must not adversely affect Google's ad revenue. If it did, they would surely fix it. This, in turn, means that apparently we have been trained to interface with search engines such that this is not a problem.

Sometimes I wonder how much my brain has changed to use search engines / how much of it is dedicated to effective googling. Makes me feel like a cyborg.

[Saaster]

That sounds like an ad business version of the efficient market theory. E.g, that can't possibly be a hundred dollar bill on the ground, because if it was someone else would surely already have picked it up by now.

I think you're overestimating Google's sophistication.

[jjeaff]

Exactly. And how would Google know whether this would improve add recenue? They have never created and tested it.

[burger_moon]

I suppose that's a base of why 'Google fu' and 'Googling skills' are such common phrases.

Knowing how the machine will interpret humans is just as important to finding your results.

[0x00000000]

The other day I found that googling something like “mesothelioma -lawyer” will exclude results with “lawyer” but all the ads will still be for lawyers and contain the word “lawyer”.

I guess because they leave it up to the advertiser to determine the negative match words and that seems to always have priority.

[tantalor]

Similar thing happens on Twitter. If you mute a phrase it will block organic content including the phrase from appearing in your timeline, except ads including the muted terms still appear in your timeline.

https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/advanced-twitter-m...

[ken]

That statement was true of every past search engine, too. AltaVista must have been great and its severe limitations must not have affected revenue, or else they surely would have improved it.

Everything is for the best, in this best of all possible search engines -- the Candide fallacy.

[bcoates]

What exactly would happen if it was a material negative impact on their revenue and they didn't fix it?

If Google isn't under survival pressure to get better (and they aren't) the incentives aren't aligned for them to improve or even to not get worse every year.

If Google is failing first gradually then suddenly it might not even be within the institutional power to notice how bad it's become before it's too late.

[MattRix]

There are lots of things Google could do improve their search and ad revenue that they haven't done yet.

[prepend]

This is the issue I think. Amazon doesn’t care about selling a shirt without stripes, it is just as happy as selling any shirt.

This assumes that AI wants truth. These three companies AI don’t necessarily want truth, they want revenue.

[eru]

A customer who searches for a shirt without stripes is probably more likely to buy shirts without stripes than shirts with stripes?