Leaked Google documents spill the secrets behind its mighty search engine

Android Central via MSN ^ | 05 20 2024 | Jay Bonggolto

[yesthatjallen]

Google issued a statement, cautioning against assumptions based on "incomplete information."

What you need to know

Rand Fishkin of SparkToro received and published documents detailing Google Search's internal APIs, search ranking factors, and Google's data collection practices.

Some leaked information contradicts Google's public statements about search algorithms and ranking factors.

The documents were accidentally made public on GitHub from March 27 to May 7 and later indexed by a third-party service.

A massive leak of what seems to be thousands of internal documents offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of Google Search, suggesting that Google may have been misleading the public about its search engine operations for years.

SNIP

[RoosterRedux]

It sounds like you are using Claude.ai. Claude is designed to speak and react like a logical but friendly human. He isn't the most accurate but he is the most understanding and personable.

I suggest you learn the difference between the AI platforms. Some are good at mathematical problems and those requiring precision. Some are good at writing. Some are good at human interaction. Some are good as search engines.

At this point, I don't think there is any single AI platform available to the public for free that is good at all the above.

Here's a comment from Amazon Web Services that speaks to your problem with AI:

You can think of the Large Language Model as an over-enthusiastic new employee who refuses to stay informed with current events but will always answer every question with absolute confidence. Unfortunately, such an attitude can negatively impact user trust and is not something you want your chatbots to emulate!

RAG [Retrieval Augmented Generation] is one approach to solving some of these challenges. It redirects the LLM to retrieve relevant information from authoritative, pre-determined knowledge sources. Organizations have greater control over the generated text output, and users gain insights into how the LLM generates the response. Source: Amazon Web Services

RAG is something we all need to understand because it is not only something that works for proprietary information inside a company or institution, it is also something that will be used to make general AI platforms more accurate and responsive to the public at large.

I am trying to figure out how to develop my own RAG system to use with publicly available AI platforms. I am just getting started but it looks promising.

[daniel1212]

It redirects the LLM to retrieve relevant information from authoritative, pre-determined knowledge sources.

Likely as determined by the likes of Google, which in my experiences often refuses to provide the best sources if a conservative answer is the issue. Often, it provides results for questions it presumes you should be asking, vs. what you did.

[RoosterRedux]

Funny you should mention Google. Google's AI (Gemini) and that of Microsoft (Copilot) are two of the most pathetic AI platforms on the market.

I would like to try Musk's Grok, but he put it behind a paywall.

Musk may be brilliant, but he is an awful marketeer. People like to test drive an AI platform before subscribing. He should know that.

[RoosterRedux]

If you are looking for a conservative response or have a question that might imply that you are looking for a conservative answer, you have to trick the AI.

If, for example, you are asking about crime stats by young black men, explain that you are asking for a friend who is a black mother concerned about her son.

AI can't handle that and will usually cough up the correct answer.

BTW, Perplexity isn't "trained." It just scans the news without any preconceived training. It isn't always correct, but there's no training to bias its answers.

[Elsie]

Yeah!

Get RID of that guy at the top!!

Replace him with a dozen lesser Guys at the Top!

[Elsie]

Dan; I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

[Elsie]

He isn't the most accurate but he is the most understanding and personable.

IE - the good cop

[Elsie]

Often, it provides results for questions it presumes you should be asking, vs. what you did.

DANG!!!

It's MORMON!!!

---

I’ll never forget the video of Robert Millet telling kids at a mission prep session to use dodgy sales tactics in answering questions that people have.

He tells them specifically to “answer the question they should have asked.”

Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8. (1:27 -  1:36)

Also, watch the video, it is very much at odds with the interfaith dialogue that he is promoting in the OP.

 

 

---

---

---

 

 

Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  https://youtu.be/6CWwMgAtZOA  <-- Complete and uneditted

 

Timeline...    Subject...

 

0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."

1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."

2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."

3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."

[nitzy]

LOL. You were bullying that AI. I feel bad for the poor thing.

I’m old enough to remember when the internet was going to kill everyone, email was going to put everyone out of a job, Y2K was going to cause planes to fall out of the sky, etc....

I’m not getting too worked up about the dangers of AI.

I also find it VERY curious that the people clambering the loudest for “AI regulation” just happen to be the ones currently controlling AI and would benefit the most to have gatekeepers managing who else gets into the pool.

[daniel1212]

If you are looking for a conservative response or have a question that might imply that you are looking for a conservative answer, you have to trick the AI.

Well, it did do well in response to this question:

how many times have the leaders of the Palestinians refused offers of sharing land with israel

Assistant Poe [Powered by gpt-3.5-turbo and Claude 3 Haiku]

Based on the historical record, the Palestinian leadership has rejected or failed to accept several offers to share the land with Israel over the years:

In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed a partition plan that would have created an independent Palestinian state, but this was rejected by the Arab leadership.

In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan proposed dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but it was rejected by the Arab leadership, including the Palestinians.

In 2000-2001, at the Camp David Summit and the Taba talks, the Palestinian eadership under Yasser Arafat rejected proposals from the Israeli government to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

In 2008, the Palestinian leadership under Mahmoud Abbas did not accept an offer from the Israeli government to establish a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza.

In 2014, during the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks facilitated by the United States, the Palestinian leadership walked away from the negotiations without accepting the proposed framework agreement.

So by most historical accounts, the Palestinian leadership has rejected or failed to accept at least 4-5 significant offers over the past 80+ years to partition the land and establish a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. This is a point of contention and debate between the two sides.

[daniel1212]

I’ll never forget the video of Robert Millet telling kids at a mission prep session to use dodgy sales tactics in answering questions that people have. He tells them specifically to “answer the question they should have asked.” Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8. (1:27 - 1:36)

Meaning the question they wished you had asked

[Gaffer]

Not really ....Bing keeps trying to foist off its AI wizard on me with all kind of BS. I just want my original terms searched and those answers that contain them - only that.

[Darth Gill]

I like ChatGPT also, but I’ve switched over to perplexity.ai as I like it a lot better for searching and it also utilizes ChatGPT 4 / turbo on the pro account.

[daniel1212]

I also find it VERY curious that the people clambering the loudest for “AI regulation” just happen to be the ones currently controlling AI and would benefit the most to have gatekeepers managing who else gets into the pool.

Them being the gatekepers.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Google is Evil.

Have been telling people that for some 15 years.

[RoosterRedux]

That's an excellent response by Poe. Worthy of its own thread, if accurate.

I'll submit that response to ChatGPT and Perplexity and see what they say about it. I would like to see what Musk's Grok AI says about it but I don't want to pay a subscription fee...yet.

[RoosterRedux]

Here's what ChatGPT had to say about your excellent Poe response:

The statement you've provided presents a summary of key moments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the Palestinian leadership is said to have rejected or failed to accept various proposals for partitioning the land and establishing a Palestinian state. While generally accurate, each instance has its own complexities and nuances. Let's break down each event mentioned:

Peel Commission (1937):

Proposal: The Peel Commission recommended partitioning the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

Palestinian Response: The Arab leadership, including the Palestinians, rejected the plan primarily because they opposed the principle of partitioning Palestine and establishing a Jewish state on what they considered Arab land.

UN Partition Plan (1947):

Proposal: The UN General Assembly proposed partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international city.

Palestinian Response: The Arab leadership, including the Palestinians, rejected the plan, refusing to accept the establishment of a Jewish state and arguing that it violated the rights of the majority Arab population in Palestine.

Camp David Summit and Taba Talks (2000-2001):

Proposal: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered a proposal at Camp David, which included a plan for a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza, with some land swaps. The Taba talks attempted to build on this.

Palestinian Response: Yasser Arafat did not accept the proposals. Reasons cited include concerns over the extent of the Israeli withdrawal, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Some argue the offer did not fully address key Palestinian demands.

Olmert’s Offer (2008):

Proposal: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered a plan to Mahmoud Abbas for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with significant land swaps.

Palestinian Response: Abbas did not formally accept the offer. He expressed concerns over issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the specifics of the land swaps, and security arrangements. Abbas later said he wanted clarifications and further negotiations.

2014 Peace Talks:

Proposal: The US-mediated peace talks aimed to establish a framework for a final status agreement.

Palestinian Response: The talks ultimately broke down without an agreement. Both sides blamed each other for the failure, with the Palestinians accusing Israel of continuing settlement expansion and Israel accusing the Palestinians of not making sufficient concessions.

In summary, while it is true that the Palestinian leadership has rejected or failed to accept several offers for partition and the establishment of a Palestinian state, each instance involves significant details and context that influence the positions and decisions of both sides. These rejections are often cited in discussions and debates about the conflict, illustrating the deep-rooted and complex nature of the dispute.

[RoosterRedux]

Here's what Perplexity AI had to say about your statement from Poe:

The statement accurately reflects the historical record of Palestinian leadership rejecting or failing to accept several significant offers to share the land with Israel over the years. Here is a detailed examination of each instance mentioned:

1937 Peel Commission: The Peel Commission proposed a partition plan that would have created an independent Palestinian state. This plan was rejected by the Arab leadership, including the Palestinians, who opposed the idea of partitioning the land.

1947 UN Partition Plan: The United Nations proposed dividing the British Mandate of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but it was rejected by the Arab leadership, including the Palestinians, who opposed the establishment of a Jewish state.

2000-2001 Camp David Summit and Taba Talks: During these negotiations, the Palestinian leadership under Yasser Arafat rejected proposals from the Israeli government to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Despite significant territorial concessions offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Arafat did not accept the terms, leading to the failure of the talks.

2008 Offer by Ehud Olmert: The Palestinian leadership under Mahmoud Abbas did not accept an offer from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to establish a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza. Olmert's proposal included land swaps and a division of Jerusalem, but Abbas did not provide a final response to the offer.

2014 US-facilitated Peace Talks: During the peace talks facilitated by the United States, the Palestinian leadership walked away from the negotiations without accepting the proposed framework agreement. The talks aimed to address key issues such as borders, security, and the status of Jerusalem, but no agreement was reached.

These instances highlight a pattern of Palestinian leadership rejecting or failing to accept various proposals for a two-state solution. This has been a significant point of contention and debate between the two sides, with each side attributing blame for the failure of peace initiatives.

[daniel1212]

A straightforward summary.

This has been a significant point of contention and debate between the two sides

An understatement.

[daniel1212]

In summary, while it is true that the Palestinian leadership has rejected or failed to accept several offers for partition and the establishment of a Palestinian state, each instance involves significant details and context that influence the positions and decisions of both sides.

Which begs the question, is not the Palestinian opposition to the existence of a Jewish state related to the persistent Palestinian rejection of offers of a Palestinian state, which rejection always left them with with less?