lupi

cow of tailed snake (gay)

avatar by @citriccenobite

you can say "chimoora" instead of "cow of tailed snake" if you want. its a good pun.​


i ramble about aerospace sometimes
I take rocket photos and you can see them @aWildLupi


I have a terminal case of bovine pungiform encephalopathy, the bovine puns are cowmpulsory


they/them/moo where "moo" stands in for "you" or where it's funny, like "how are moo today, Lupi?" or "dancing with mooself"



Bovigender (click flag for more info!)
bovigender pride flag, by @arina-artemis (click for more info)



Sheri
@Sheri

a while back, www.xkcd.com creator Randall Munroe made a pretty entertaining thread on bad website showcasing some truly wild answers Google provides at the top of the results page

now, i know that sending you to Twitter in april 2023 is like sending someone to Pompeii WHILE the volcano experiments an eruption, but better to get what you're getting BEFORE it's all ash, no? that said, for archival purposes, here's an example of an answer google gave ol' Randy boy:

QUESTION: Which president discovered electricity?

ANSWER: Benjamin Franklin.

wow! that's wrong in truly SO MANY ways!

now, a lot of the questions randall posed were purposefully leading, as a showcase more than anything as to what's going on with google's Answer Box algorithm, but the electrics one seems like a fairly benign question. at least for like, a fifth grader learning about history. sadly,

the first result google puts in that box is so often wildly incorrect and should not be trusted

now is the part where i show you the science behind my claim here, except google really doesn't like to discuss the algorithms they use

Google Answers Box for the search "Why doesn't google reveal their search algorithm". The answer is from Perrill in 2014, reading: "Google has clearly stated in the past that it won't reveal its algorithm for two primary reasons: The algorithm is a business secret. Revealing it would give an edge to the competition. Revealing the algorithm would be an invite to all spammers in the world, resulting in a vastly inferior web."

two reasons, eh? let's click through to the nearly decade-old information google thinks is the best answer to my question and see what wasn't "featured" in their "snippet"

Further reading from the Perrill article by Nathaniel Tower, reading: Should Google Reveal the Algorithm? In short, no.  There are many reasons why we might jump on Google’s case:  Google is a monopoly (debatable), Google makes too much money at our expense (they make money in exchange for providing a service), Google invades my privacy (read their terms of services) Google+ is stupid (no comment) Google ruined my business when it penalized my site (read their webmaster guidelines) As fun as it is to play victim and hate on the big guy, there’s no denying that Google is where it is today because it provides a valuable service. And it does it without charging us money (I won’t go as far as to say we get it for free).

lol. lmao.

like, i could sit here and criticize this ten-year-old article's author for seeing the writing on the wall and buying a paint roller, but obviously here in the future, it's pretty undebatable that google is a monopoly. that said, my first instinct here was to claim google was being self-servicing with this result, which, they were.

but i honestly doubt it's on purpose, because:

Another Google search, with the input "Is Google a monopoly". The answer is "As a result of its illegal monopoly, and by its own estimates, Google pockets on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products; for some transactions and for certain publishers and advertisers, it takes far more."

i think it's far more likely Google is just pouring all the data scraped from search result sites into a "special algorithm", some kind of black box that reads the user's input and tries to come up with a correct-sounding response with context clues

it just kind of, confidently spouts off a completely incorrect or improperly contextualized answer without considering the dangers of it. actually, it kinda reminds me of another type of tech hell...

An article headline from CNET, written by Carrie Mihalcick, from Feb 2023. It reads: "Google ChatGPT Rival Bard Flubs Fact About NASA's Webb Space Telescope Alphabet lost about $100 billion in value after a demo meant to show off the AI-powered chatbot bungled its response on the NASA telescope."

OH, THAT'S RIGHT!

imagine if an "AI" chatbot could only speak in direct quotation.

that's essentially the answer box. it's the I'm Feeling Lucky button automated, so you never have to leave google before answering your question. (unless you're the kind of person that cares about citing your sources)

though, luck has very little to do with it, according to SEO experts trying to sell you a solution to navigating Google's monopoly over search. businesses are fighting to get THEIR information and name higher on the results page than what is actually most relevant to your search

competition in a race for capital, with disinformation considered an acceptable casualty. thankfully, google has a solution:

Google's support page about the answer box, or 'featured snippets'. It's too long to go in alt text, but can be found in the link above.

what an absolutely absurd thing to just say without thinking about it! good grief!

THE SOLUTION TO THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION IS NOT TO "RELY" ON THOSE BEING MISINFORMED TO MODERATE MISINFORMATION. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?

the answer box is terrible. click through, cite your sources, and break up google.

Another Google search result. The question: "Should big tech monopolies be broken up." The answer: "Breaking up big tech giants would restore competition and create opportunities. Because big tech companies hold monopoly power over their market, enforcing anti-trust laws and other government policies to regulate them would enable greater competition and give small organizations and startups a chance to grow."

even google agrees, see?


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @Sheri's post:

for sure, and those sources Google was pulling from were far from scientific. A Wall Street Journal article and a WTOP radio blog. But the juxtaposition of the two by google is so ostentatious