What in the literal expletive is this? Is this how ChatGPT answers questions now?
@elonmusk will @grok also be rolling out "Terrible Mode" as a feature anytime soon?
I thought the goal of all of this was to save time, not waste it.
I just hate that 'giving back what was stolen' is no longer in the mainstream discussion of what these AI companies should do to "make it right". I agree compensation would be better than nothing, but I hate feeling like we live in a world where you can just take something and then as long as you figure out something to pay for it later, it's fine. I can't go steal my neighbors BBQ grill because I want it and then tell him I'll throw him a few bucks later for it. Even if I offer to give him a million dollars, he should still have had the right to choose if he wanted to sell me the grill or not.
Oxford researchers just confirmed what we feared:
The internet as we knew it is dying.
AI content went from ~5% in 2020 to 48% by May 2025. Projections say 90%+ by next year.
Why? AI articles cost <$0.01. Human writers cost $10-100.
But the real crisis is model collapse. When AI trains on AI-generated content, quality degrades like photocopying a photocopy. Rare ideas disappear. Everything converges to generic sameness.
It's recursive. Today's AI slop becomes tomorrow's training data, producing worse output, which becomes training data again.
@lilyraynyc Stinks that the same rules apply for HCU folks who didn't do anything to get in trouble. Although, I'd be ecstatic if I knew we were on the two-year plan 🤷♂️
@retro_dodo I've been out of the game game for a while now but had a couple of questions after seeing your post about Time Crisis the other day.
1 - Is there any way to play Duck Hunt these days without an old Nintendo?
2 - Is there a way to play Wii bowling and the other games from Wii? I think I read they stopped making them?
@glenngabe thank you for this thorough write up (as always). I had two follow up questions.
1. You shared a screenshot of this quote from @JohnMu "With core updates, Google doesn't focus on individual issues, but rather the relevance of the site overall (including content quality, UX issues, ads on the page, how things are presented, sources, & more)."
Does this indicate there is an evaluation process that is happening ONLY during updates? It sounds way less like updating a system, but more like an evaluation process.
I didn't see where the quote was from, so was wondering if there was context.
2. I saw this from one of your paragraphs, "Unfortunately, there are some site owners that gave up and abandoned their efforts. I totally understand that based on what was happening over time (with no recovery as update after update rolled out). "
Does this indicate that sites that gave up are less likely to see recoveries? I had heard from @searchliaison that this wasn't the case, but I'm just wondering if you were implying something here or maybe it was just two separate thoughts that my mind is conflating when reading.
Thanks!
We found a really unique strategy that has minimized our losses during the core updates. If they drive your traffic to zero, nothing to lose!
All kidding aside, sorry to hear this :/ As happy as we are (genuinely) to see others start to "recover", it makes it hurt a bit worse too knowing we're out on an island even moreso now.
Here's to hoping you see some gains soon!