seems to work ok
There always do exist magic combinations of words that you can put into google that will find the thing you're looking for. But the search space doesn't feel differentiable in a mathematical sense: you can't iteratively improve your terms because you either hit on a combo that works, or you get the same wrong results as you saw for your past 10 searches.
Oh yeah, I had forgotten Google used to espouse that. Almost seems quaint now. Was it a ruse all along? Or an ideal later betrayed when they were seduced by the siren song of revenue? Or simply a double standard: making YOUR information freely available but OURS not so much?
https://www.google.com/intl/en_us/search/howsearchworks/our-...
Disclosure: I work at Google.
I think "proprietary" is a better descriptor for Google Search's inner machinations, than "secret". The general concept of engineering a search crawler is well-trodden. Many companies have done it, there are open-source examples, and Google themselves have written blogs about their own.
It would probably be more apt to say, we know where the books came from and how they were acquired, we just don't necessarily know how the archive shelves in the basement are arranged and we don't know which employee is responsible for organizing them and we don't have the source code to the library's LMS. (All of which is true, by the way, for the LOC.) Proprietary, not secret.
Try it today, and see what Google's AI turns up. It's amusing. It's still not what LeGuin is looking for. Search for "god is the silence of the universe" in quotes, and while Google does find a Saramago reference, the AI reframes the concept in Christian terms.
Now try
"god is the silence of the universe" atheist
I certainly think that we should be spending more resources as a civilization on storing and categorizing human knowledge in a more systematic and not-for-profit way. Expecting a for-profit corporation to do that is just a category error. I'm not saying this in an anti-capitalist sense; I'm in favor of for-profit corporations. People have unrealistic expectations about what they can or should accomplish.
Let the invisible hand decide if "provenance" is a differentiator, and lay off the slurs.
baerrie•2mo ago
simtel20•2mo ago
29ebJCyy•2mo ago
simtel20•2mo ago
the_af•2mo ago
I find this is at the core of Stallman's criticism of the term "content". We speak of media "content", of "content authors", etc, as if movies, articles, books, etc were just that: content, ready to be commoditized, packaged and sold. And some of it is! But we've conditioned to think of everything as "content" to be "consumed", which is depressing.
pixl97•2mo ago
Specialization pretty much requires it, and our adherence to capitalism demands it.
You specialize to get paid, and by getting paid you can pay others that specialize to create. And you're right, it's a depressing system, but it's no less depressing than what came before that.
simtel20•2mo ago
johnnyanmac•2mo ago
You can make an argument that it is more depressing when the compartmentalization of everything also isolates off community. No amount of individual riches can repair a trusted community to engage with. We're definitely getting lonlier in the process.
rdiddly•2mo ago
the_af•2mo ago
And we've all adopted it. Or mostly, anyway.
johnnyanmac•2mo ago
In a similar breath, that may be why we don't heat much of the next generation of Stallman's and instead hear of a looming crisis in FOSS as the old guard retires. Less devs (if they are even pursuing that path down the line) will have the free time to choose FOSS as a path, unless big tech is paying for it to bend ot to their will.
JuniperMesos•2mo ago
simtel20•2mo ago