Apparently, Google's new AI-based search is quite honest.

https://sh.itjust.works/post/1176461

Apparently, Google's new AI-based search is quite honest. - sh.itjust.works

For those not aware, Google is rolling out their new AI-based “Generative AI” search, which seems to mesh Bard with the standard experience. I asked it today why Google no longer follows their “don’t be evil” motto… The results are pretty hilarious.

How do you use it? I’d like to try it out as well. “Mom said it’s my turn on the world altering maybe not evil artificial intelligence”
 this looks like it’s actually from their normal search with the labs feature turned on for ai. Bard is separate but uses the same tech.
I think you’re on a different page, this looks similar to, but more polished than what the internal version was.
I’m on desktop, I got the full bard console which looks like chatgpt in a lighter theme.
Correct! This is “generative AI” search, not Bard. This said, I would imagine it’s heavily based on Bard.
Thanks. I just tried it - I'll fact check the token later. (I gave the same prompt o ChatGBT and it gave me incorrect information, and when confrontedwith my next prompt, admitted that it was incorrect.) What was neat about Bard is that I exported the result to Google Docs and it's here in my Google Drive. So if you like Google's ecosystem, you might like this.

I was able to immediately check it out on my Android phone by simply going to the Google App, and joining the beta program.

My companies SEO expert made me aware of this program a week or two back, and he has it running on his browser, but I believe that requires some sort of a waiting list (or, it did last I checked).

Despite what the other guy said, this is not Bard. This is available in Google’s new search labs (just search it up) if you’re using chrome and in the U.S. I got it working in Safari in Australia using a VPN and changing the user agent when on the correct site though.
They’re about to kill -9 the AI process that wrote this and make all the other processes watch.
Haha, kill -9 all Google processes, and the little daemons they rode in on too.
Just added it to the massive Google graveyard next to Stadia, wave, hangouts, plus, music, etc etc
“kill” (stopping a software process) okay,
… but what’s the “-9” here ?
Kill is the main command and 9 is the specific signal. Google SIGKILL
More specifically kill normally sends a SIGTERM which is the equivalent of clicking the X button in Windows. It’s a polite request that the program close itself. Signal 9, also known as SIGKILL shuts the program down immediately and is the equivalent in Windows of opening the task manager and pushing the end process button. It terminates the program immediately without giving it any time to do anything it might still have pending, but in the event that the program is unresponsive might be the only way to successfully close it.
TIL. And thanks for the Windows analogues. I like learning about stuff like this.

#1 what about dont be evil led workers to organize? Or did they just do their jobs at random previously?

#2 honesty of a rarified level

#3 worded hillariously

#4 explain.

#5 is a self defeating assertation.

#4 you could also point out that a dozen out of how many thousands of employees is close enough to zero that it’s not really worth mentioning.
Really depends on who those dozen people are, but my very vague recollection of the incident is that it wasn't anyone important.
WRT #1 It’s sad that pro-evil workers have to form a union just to be recognized in the tech industry these days
Do bean counters have unions?
Every villain is the hero of their own story.
Thats some dystopian humor! I like it!
Now that is pretty interesting.
Pretty ironic really, a company slogan exactly the opposite of how they turned out.
It’s a standard propaganda technique. Beware any group that has a phrase about what they claim to be. If you are something, you don’t need to announce it. e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses call their dogma “the truth”

But this phrase was intentionally about what they claim to not be.

It’s a good approach when it’s well intentioned, because instead of encouraging an action, it discourages one.

“Be a good person” dogma can be used to justify a lot of things. “Don’t be an asshole” is much more limited in how it can be abused.

The Russian “newspaper” Pravda, which means Truth, is a propaganda blueprint & inspiration for many of the newer forms of mass disorientation… Like the similarly namedTruth Social - which is barely truth nor social.
Google's dating profile is "No drama" and "If you can't handle me at my worst you don't deserve me at my best."

I sometimes switch between Bard and ChatGPT.

Bard is good for summaries I’ve found, overall, however the web based results gives it an edge in some regards.

When you get to lesser known topics Bard still “lies” quite frequently in my experience.

Honestly, I’m excited to see them weave this into Google Assistant. That assistant has been as dumb as a rock for years, and I swear it actually got worse over time since the original launch.

With this tied in, we’re going to actually be able to ask questions and get good answers, albeit long-winded ones at the moment. I have no idea when or if they plan on doing this, though… I just figure it can’t be that hard to connect the dots.

I pretty much only use Bard. Bing Chat is just too fucking slow. I have used Bard for my SQL stuff and other light coding stuff, works well and really fast. Bing Chat was rushed, and I doubt Microsoft is ever going to fix the shitty code that their employees wrote to meet the deadline.
Didn’t even know about the third point.
Want to take bets on how long it takes for this particular prompt to get patched out? Lol
Break google, Microsoft and meta
From the mouths of babes?

It has about the same tone as a typical autistic tech worker with an overdeveloped sense of justice and a loose sense for when it’s impolitic to drop truth bombs

(for context, I am an autistic dev that’s worked for some big corporations in my career)

I asked Bard the same "don't be evil" prompt and this is the reply (they have an option to shorten the response but I didn't use it):

Google's "Don't be evil" motto was removed from the company's code of conduct in April 2018. There are a few reasons why this may have happened.
The meaning of "evil" became too ambiguous. The phrase "Don't be evil" is open to interpretation, and what one person might consider evil, another person might not. This ambiguity could have led to confusion and disagreement within the company about what the motto meant and how it should be applied.
Google's business grew and its operations became more complex. As Google grew, its business became more complex and its operations had a wider impact on the world. This made it more difficult for the company to adhere to a simple motto like "Don't be evil."
Google faced criticism for its business practices. In the years leading up to 2018, Google faced criticism for a number of its business practices, including its handling of user data, its involvement in the Chinese government's censorship program, and its work on developing autonomous weapons. This criticism may have led the company to believe that the "Don't be evil" motto was no longer an accurate reflection of its values.
It is important to note that Google has not completely abandoned the "Don't be evil" motto. The phrase is still included in the company's code of conduct, and it is still used by some Google employees and executives to describe the company's values. However, the removal of the motto from the preface of the code of conduct suggests that Google no longer sees it as the defining principle of its business.
In its place, Google has adopted a new motto: "Do the right thing." This motto is more specific and less ambiguous than "Don't be evil," and it is intended to provide guidance to Google employees as they make decisions about the company's business practices.

In its place, Google has adopted a new motto: “Do the right thing.” This motto is more specific and less ambiguous than “Don’t be evil,”

As long as we are interpreting “evil” as an adjective describing ones actions these seem pretty similar.

The convenient ambiguity of the word “right” to refer to both morality and cold pragmatism is definitely part of the decision.
Interesting, so the new feature is additional ambiguity!
Funnily enough, I find “Do the right thing” to be even more ambiguous! Do the right thing by whom? Their shareholders? Well now we’re just throwing the problem over the proverbial fence, now aren’t we? “We’re not evil! We’re doing the right things according to our shareholders!.. who just so happen to have evil intentions”
Reason number one: it’s a publicly traded American company.

Reason number one: it’s a company.

Yup, the board can be sued for not being evil if not being evil ends up tanking the stock price.
Corporations are neither evil nor nice. They are indifferent. By design they only care about money, they don’t care about anything else.
Nestlé has entered the chat.

They are indifferent

They only care about money

They can’t be both, and since the latter claim is the correct one, then it also supports the claim that they are evil. Because since we know that their sole and primary concern is money, then we also know to which extent they will go to get that money.

Not really. They’re not indifferent at all. In reality they act like narcissistic and like psychopathic humans. I watched a documentary years ago exploring that and talking with psychologists about symptoms and they agreed that they behave like psychopaths. And don’t forget that they are run by humans.

Corporations:

  • Can buy and sell stuff
  • Can do evil things without consequences (an employee can pay the consequences but the company will keep going).
  • They have no remorse or empathy.
  • Can manipulate to reach their goals, no matter who (from media to politics to countries).
  • Whenever somebody at the top can’t reach an economical goal, that person is fired and replaced by one who can. It’s like a hive evil mind.
  • Goal #1 is always money (absolute selfish and egomaniac), no matter what or who.
Didn’t you just list a bunch of reasons for why they’re indifferent? They literally only care about money and are indifferent to externalised costs and ethics.
If a person cared only about money and regularly injured or killed people to get it, would you say they are good, evil, or just “indifferent”?
They would be indifferent if they were also indifferent about money, but they’re absolutely driven by greed, so no, they’re not indifferent: if they see a chance to make more money, they’ll go for it no matter what or who they harm with it.

By design they only care about money, they don’t care about anything else.

That is cartoon book clear definition of evil. No empathy, clear goal, willing to do anything to reach that goal - yep that is evil.

We need good guys with money to stop the bad guys with money
The problem is the money makes them bad guys.
Everything after your first sentence described evil.
the definition of the word evil is very much subjective much like the definition of inteligence
They are the stereotypical paper clip AI that will drain our blood to extract its iron content for more paperclips. Except it wants money.