That's to be expected. Google needs that money to fund the AI development that will enable them to replace creators with their own slop, allowing them to pocket 100 % instead of sharing anything at all.
Exactly, it is already a pattern that Google will start paying good money for ads and then progressively reduce the pay to its publishers. It is a bait and switch strategy, but they'll certainly say that it is just an algorithm improvement....
Totally an organic and transparent marketplace that joins together publishers and consumers huh?
It has been down since the COVID boom for obvious reasons, and then it has gone even more.. Google needing the billions to put into the AI burner is just and unfortunate coincidence..
Perhaps. This is the last paragraph from the main award:
> It’s a design that sits between mass production and personalization, reflecting a world where individuality matters more than ever. Rather than buying a notebook, you complete it—turning a passive object into an active, personal process.
This is a translation via translate.kagi.com from "LinkedIn speak" to English:
> It’s a way to charge people for the privilege of assembling their own office supplies under the guise of "individuality." You aren't just buying a notebook; you're paying for the chore of finishing it so you can feel like you've had a "personal process" instead of just buying a damn notebook.
Seems accurate; then again, I also own a nice notebook and a fountain pen and I enjoy using them, even if this is just me feeling like I have a personal process.
Okay, well I guess clout-chasing was the whole point, as evidenced by the Github repo front page going on about "star counts" all over. Great job, who cares?
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask where all the great AI built software is. There has been comments here on HN about people becoming 30 to 50 times more productive than before.
To put a statement like that into perspective (50 times more productive): The first week of the year about as much was accomplished as the whole previous year put together.
I haven't made any "great" software ever in my life. With AI or without.
But with AI assistance I've made SO MANY "useful", "handy" and "nifty" tools that I would've never bothered to spend the time on.
Like just last night I had Claude make a shell script on a whim that lets me use fzf to choose a running tmux session - with a preview of what the session's screen looks like.
Could I make it by hand? Yep. Would I have bothered? Most likely no.
Now it got done and iterated on my second monitor while I was watching 21 Bridges on my main monitor and eating snacks. (Chadwick Boseman was great in it)
I'd question your assumption that the software would be "great". I think we're seeing the volume of software increase faster than before. The average quality of the total volume of software will almost certainly decrease. It's not a contradiction for productivity in that respect to increase while quality decreases.
Well, if your produced value was 0 in the first place, multiplying that by a hundred will still be zero. Best example of that are claws: a lot of hype but just vapor, twitter fart at best.
I'm honestly not a big fan of when people throw out numbers implying a high degree of rigor without actually showing me evidence so I can judge for myself. If you're this much more productive, then use some % of that newly discovered productivity to show us.
But building software does tend to come with a lag even with AI. And we're also just more likely to see its influence in existing software first.
I'd rather be asking where it is AND actively trying to explore this space so I have a better grasp of the engineering challenges. I think there's just too many interesting things happening to be able to just wave it off.
I can confirm that this is the exact method recommended in forums where people and businesses that meet adversity from banks on a daily basis (most of the time for completely legitimate businesses, sometimes not) congregate to share advice.
The point is to feed the compliance critters exactly what they want so they can tick their boxes without sticking their necks out.
There are other mechanisms of delivery such as oral vaccines. This is a valid reason, phobias need addressing. But plenty of vaccines are available via oral delivery.
Ive had a bone marrow biopsy done. Those are done fully awake with no anesthetic except for the skin incision.
You literally feel the push of the sharp needle cutting through your bone. Slowly. methodically. Half a millimeter by half millimeter every time the practitioner puts her weight on the needle.
Then, as they aspirate the marrow, you feel as if your balls are being sucked into your hips.
Then, despite the pain, I volunteered to sign up as a bone marrow donor.
Please, call me an idiot if you must, but don't explain away my distrust of vaccines with cowardice.
I can't see any reason why Google would send traffic anyones way in the future. "Search results" will turn into a "Citations" list at the bottom of the page for the excessively curious, and probably look like it does on a page like Wikipedia. Meanwhile 98 % of the "results" page will be AI-generated and ad-ridden. Ads will be inserted into the AI content as recommendations because why not?
"Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home."
That particular quote seems to come up every once in a while, and I still don't quite get why people feel it's profound or important. China has a very public and well-known list of things that you are not allowed to talk about (Tienanmen Square, a few others). SF doesn't (or didn't) because what was offensive or violated whatever new rule the way-too-online wasn't codified as part of some legal apparatus, it was/is very dynamic. One does not need to actually go to China to recognize this.
I think it's simply the enforcement mechanisms make people paranoid, especially since they are usually directed at children (by schools), it all then snowballs from there.
reply