• Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    how are they shocked, when they also get blog posts, and other posts being summarized on the AI search?

  • C1pher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Seems like a skill issue to be honest. Bunch of boomers checking boxes they dont understand, since thats entirely optional thing to create. Those public links arent created by themselves.

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Apparently these people ticked a box saying “allow this chat to be indexed by search engines” and were surprised when their chats were indexed by search engines?

        • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I remember seeing the check box option appear to directly index to google, this explains why I can’t find it anymore.
          I tried searching unique things in my shared text and couldn’t find any of them on the goog

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    1 day ago

    ‘Make this chat discoverable.’ Beneath that, in smaller, lighter text, was a caveat explaining that the chat could then appear in search engine results."

    UX designer here. People don’t read the little gray supporting text. “Search Engine” should’ve been in the headline.

    • Feyd@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’ve always been under the impression that the little grey supporting text being little and grey is because the designer didn’t want it read but was required to put it somewhere. A dark pattern, if you will. Is it actually not intended that way?

      • Jesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        When it’s used correctly, it should be adding a little extra color or context that’s not critical for most users, but will be helpful to a certain segment.

        Or it’s bullshit that you -know- the user doesn’t care about, but it’s needed to make some person or department happy.

        Or it’s a dark pattern.

  • motor_spirit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    the ignorance required to lean into ‘AI’ in such a way all but ensures this

    it’s pretty telling that I hear AI talked about and seemingly used most by conservative types, I imagine because it’s being pushed by influencers in that realm and the same people bankrolling ‘AI’ everywhere. people that are already comfortable with blind faith… makes a bit of sense

    then you still have people who are used to challenging and questioning things still upholding skepticism and not trusting ai because it all reeks of shit

    AI for next pope!

    • Eldritch@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      That and conservatives abhor thinking. They need someone or something to defer to. And LLMs can give them all sorts of moderately intelligent bullshit they’ve come to expect . From their leaders and politicians. But better and faster. With possibly even less accuracy.

    • BangCrash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Its one thing to not be private. Its an entirely different thing for that thing to be crawled, indexed and published on the world’s biggest catalogue

      • Womble@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yep, and when you click a button that liteally says “make this discoverable on search engines” which is off by defualt, its the later.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        When it’s chats with LLMs trained on this very type of data, it’s mostly the user’s fault. Of course, executives of LLM companies should still rot in prison.

        • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 hours ago

          It’s totally avoidable if you don’t use it, but I think the onus is mostly on the companies for advertising these chat bots as like, a friendly personal assistant when that’s absolutely not what they are. Like all “AI” shit, it runs mostly on consumer deception.

  • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well I’m shocked more people don’t ignore the flashing lights at train stations and just drive into the tracks right in front the trains frankly.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      unrelated but kinda related - I’m a firefighter. Often seen folks driving toward the scene lights like moths. Can be sketchy sometimes. I suspect it’s the collimated leds just piercing into the brains of the already distracted drivers.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Says in the article the users clicked “share chat” then shared the links with others on services like What’s App.

    Sounds like What’s App should get some flack for this too.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t see why, least my understanding, you hit share chat, it creates a public link… google’s robots discover everything public and index it. Seems to me like the same problem would happen if you generated a link to share on any platform, and burned it and never sent information to any platform. Unless googles indexing all whatsapp messages, but that would be a much bigger story.

      Anyway point is blame IMO falls on either chatgpt for not properly configuring a robots.txt, or google for not following it.

      • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        23 hours ago

        How does it discover the link though? Is it crawling your whatsapp chats, or just trying every possible chatgpt share link?

        • kurwa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Y’all need to read the 5 minute article. It was a short lived feature where they had a checkbox that said: “index my chat into search engines”. Which is honestly dumb as shit if you ask me.

        • TheFogan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          sounds to me just like googles bots are finding them… could also just be maybe chrome or similar taking note when it finds a page and dropping a dime to google.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Google’s search bots shouldn’t find chats except through dumb luck.
        Because without the GUID, it’s nearly impossible to find any shared chats at all. That’s just how GUIDs work

      • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I don’t know what the deal is, just that the article specifically names What’s App.