this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
73 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
319 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jaamulberry@beehaw.org 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Counter point. I would wager people are more productive scrolling 5 minutes through a Facebook post then taking a 30 minute coffee break talking to various coworkers. I would hate this. Also if you're a developer how would you research something? No stack overflow? No access to forums to solve particular problems? Not sure this is sustainable.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Losing access to language reference docs would be huge. What are they gonna do, save them all locally? Maintain copies of those sites on the company intranet, at the company's expense? What happens when the next version of Python is released?

This is a real cut the nose the spite the face move. Google would hemorrhage developers.

[–] phoenixes@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, Google does index and cache most webpages internally already. So yeah, maybe. But after reading the article it doesn't sound like they're doing that.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean let's say they solve that part, sure. Let's go back to Google's original intent for this maneuver: they want to beef up "security."

Ars Technica's sub-title line says "You can't get hacked if you aren't on the Internet." That is utter nonsense. I'll take "What is E-Mail?" for 500 Alex. Surely they wouldn't block EMAIL right? How would they communicate with vendors, partners, governments, etc? Does Google think phishing emails, ransomware, etc don't work if you don't have internet access?

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Actually, most email malware is staged now, so it wouldn't work. PDFs with the malware embedded get flagged, so PDFs with a link to the malware replaced them. Even most ransomware is via an external link.

[–] Mischala@lemmy.nz 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can't Google your obscure package's runtime error? Guess you aren't gonna do anything of value for the rest of the day.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

As long as the money's green...

[–] wim@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

Why not? They already do for the vast majority of this stuff. It's not that much and releases of these things are structured and indexed everywhere anyway.

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

Storing local copies of docs is a thing some companies do. I've worked at a couple of places that did that. And when the next version of $foo is released, and the devs get the go-ahead to use it, wget gets executed to make a new copy. Sucks, but that's the threat model in some places.

[–] abhibeckert@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I had access to a good LLM, that'd be enough for 99% of my research. And the other 1% I could probably do on a phone.

[–] aksdb@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

LLMs produce text. They don't answer questions. If the probability of the keywords in the question are being used in correlation with the answer often enough, it might (re)produce the actual answer. But you can never be sure.

LLMs are not a source for information.

[–] Mischala@lemmy.nz 7 points 1 year ago

Jones on them, half of their developers coffee comes from stack overflow.

Rip productivity