ChatGPT-3: Google Says AI Generated Contents Are Against Webmaster Guidelines(steadipulse.com)
steadipulse.com
ChatGPT-3: Google Says AI Generated Contents Are Against Webmaster Guidelines
https://www.steadipulse.com/2023/02/chatgpt-3-vs-google-webmaster-guidelines.html
53 comments
Fascinating. Her client could still pay her for 3 hours if they wanted to… I’m guessing they are using the free or cheap version for ChatGPT and they are getting similar value from her. Without her skills the content is worthless.
Of course that doesn’t address the underlying emotional impact of the job changing from authoring original content to proof reading for a robot.
Of course that doesn’t address the underlying emotional impact of the job changing from authoring original content to proof reading for a robot.
Content will follow the same law of supply and demand as everything else. Since we literally can't increase demand anymore (everybody is online all the time already), the exponential increase in supply is going to drive the cost of content through the floor.
Content creation is not a good business to be in now.
Content creation is not a good business to be in now.
The issue here is that she's being asked to do a job outside her expertise. What she's doing isn't writing, it's editing. Two different things.
Copywriters calling GPT content soulless is truly the pot calling the kettle black. Copy is the most useless, soulless content out there that for some reason every product is expected to have.
We’re moving even further to the end for scraping the entire web and pagerank.
It’s been on a steady decline for a long time with dark SEO and filler content patterns.
Google already tries to just give you the right answer to your question and not send you to garbage websites.
Someday we’ll seldom need to read any websites directly, especially for anything that content marketing and think pieces are trying to answer.
If you want that, chat with the AI to ask questions and get answers directly. Ask more questions to get more angles of thought.
This is a good thing IMHO. People using AI to fill their websites with content is a waste of everyone’s time.
The big question is where does all the training data come from if not from scraping the whole web.
We will figure out some sort of provenance system for data, which will lend to the high quality data sets of human curated knowledge and art.
These will have trade offs, like limits to the knowledge and more expensive to build and consume. This will compete with data sets that do scrape everything.
What’s ironic is we’re shifting back to the days of Yahoo curating a directory of content, which Google ultimately destroyed with their crawling and ranking.
Everything is cyclical.
It’s been on a steady decline for a long time with dark SEO and filler content patterns.
Google already tries to just give you the right answer to your question and not send you to garbage websites.
Someday we’ll seldom need to read any websites directly, especially for anything that content marketing and think pieces are trying to answer.
If you want that, chat with the AI to ask questions and get answers directly. Ask more questions to get more angles of thought.
This is a good thing IMHO. People using AI to fill their websites with content is a waste of everyone’s time.
The big question is where does all the training data come from if not from scraping the whole web.
We will figure out some sort of provenance system for data, which will lend to the high quality data sets of human curated knowledge and art.
These will have trade offs, like limits to the knowledge and more expensive to build and consume. This will compete with data sets that do scrape everything.
What’s ironic is we’re shifting back to the days of Yahoo curating a directory of content, which Google ultimately destroyed with their crawling and ranking.
Everything is cyclical.
Mobile was supposed to have killed off PC's by now. Music videos were supposed to kill off radio. I don't want search engines or web sites to go away and I don't believe they will. The recent AI fad is quickly being realized as another tool, sometimes useful, sometimes out in left field, on another planet, that doesn't exist.
If killed off means 0 that will never happen. But surely mobile dominates desktops worldwide now. Most things are mobile first or mobile only.
Also we will see a similar cycle play out with AI that computing devices did.
Right now we back in the “mainframe” days where IBM, MS, and Google have the systems.
Next will be “super computers”, then “work stations”, then “personal computers” then “mobile”. At the end we’ll all have many data sets and AIs in our pocket.
This cycle will be way faster because we don’t have to invent the underlying computer tech.
You can already get the AI in your pocket to classify and content search all you photos.
Right now we back in the “mainframe” days where IBM, MS, and Google have the systems.
Next will be “super computers”, then “work stations”, then “personal computers” then “mobile”. At the end we’ll all have many data sets and AIs in our pocket.
This cycle will be way faster because we don’t have to invent the underlying computer tech.
You can already get the AI in your pocket to classify and content search all you photos.
We'd need to better define dominates. Does it mean, lots of mobile devices compares to PC numbers? Probably. Which do most computing users spend the most time on, PC or mobile during the course of a day. I think the answer has to be PC (Linux, Mac, Windows, etc.).
Did you mean "scrapping" in your first sentence? I am a bit confused since "scraping" is something that search engines do, but pagerank is something that you might want scrapped instead of scraped.
> Google already tries to just give you the right answer to your question and not send you to garbage websites.
Funny, because every goddamn time I try to find a solution to a very specific issue, the first page is full of sites that repost AI-mangled crap that tells you to keep your computer and firewall updated.
Hoating that hot garbage ought to be punishable.
Funny, because every goddamn time I try to find a solution to a very specific issue, the first page is full of sites that repost AI-mangled crap that tells you to keep your computer and firewall updated.
Hoating that hot garbage ought to be punishable.
I search for the name of a Windows DLL, because I want technical information about it – what it does, its documented API, any information on undocumented APIs or reverse engineering, its implementation status in Wine or ReactOS, history of security vulnerabilities, its history (is it a descendant of some DLL in Windows 3.x, or was it just added in Windows 10 or 11?), etc, etc, etc
Instead of giving me what I want, it gives me pages of useless content farm crap with titles such as "How to Fix WHATEVER.dll Not Found or Missing Errors", "WHATEVER.dll free download", etc, etc, etc.
I can't understand why Google can't expunge all this content farm junk. I don't believe it is technically infeasible – rather, I think it is that Google (for whatever reason) doesn't actually want to do so.
Instead of giving me what I want, it gives me pages of useless content farm crap with titles such as "How to Fix WHATEVER.dll Not Found or Missing Errors", "WHATEVER.dll free download", etc, etc, etc.
I can't understand why Google can't expunge all this content farm junk. I don't believe it is technically infeasible – rather, I think it is that Google (for whatever reason) doesn't actually want to do so.
Googles business is to sell your eyeballs to advertisers. If you click on one of those junk pages you’ll likely get more ads.
Not good business to send you directly to the ad free reference site with all the answers.
Not good business to send you directly to the ad free reference site with all the answers.
Pagerank only worked in the beginning because the human curation of early journal sites and webrings provided a clean training set. Pagerank is a parasite openly committed to dehumanizing knowledge, that ended up killing its human hosts, and is now itself dying. That’s not ironic, that’s ecology.
Nailed it. Time to watch the ecological cycle play out again.
If i had to bet, Google won’t survive. Someone much smaller and nimble will take over.
If i had to bet, Google won’t survive. Someone much smaller and nimble will take over.
But provenance will not be block chain and NFTs…
More like a shift back to universities producing, curating and verifying the highest quality human produced data.
More like a shift back to universities producing, curating and verifying the highest quality human produced data.
The feedback loop of projecting your live camera to a tv while also filming your TV is about to happen internet wide as AI starts learning from itself and exhibiting something like language based white noise.
As an aside, i can't wait to see web search results constantly ranking the first thousands of results some AI generated content from AI generated content from AI generated content.
ChatGPT is going to end up eating its own tail creating an aberrational information cyclone of fury with a nonsensical digital landscape as the inevitable finale.
Correction: It’s against the guidelines for us peons.
If Google, Facebook, CNN, or Buzzfeed wants to do it I’m sure it’s completely approved and Google will even encourage it by ranking them higher in the search results.
They just don’t want these tools in the hands of ordinary people, that’s what they always mean when they use words like “Safety”. Safe for them!
If Google, Facebook, CNN, or Buzzfeed wants to do it I’m sure it’s completely approved and Google will even encourage it by ranking them higher in the search results.
They just don’t want these tools in the hands of ordinary people, that’s what they always mean when they use words like “Safety”. Safe for them!
ChatGPT does not produce high quality content. It literally spins content. Albeit, at a much higher quality than competitors.
The thing about ChatGPT is that unless you're willing to sit down and pick its "brains" - it will feel quite average for most queries. It's not sentient, so it cannot understand what you mean when you ask it to do something, but it can certainly learn and do a better job at it if you keep giving it examples.
Good luck with that, they already lost the war against automated content which is a far easier problem
Wait, it could be read as: Google content is not good enough to train AI bots anymore.
That's total BS, chatGPT generated some nice filler content for my website, and i m keeping it even if google doesn't like it. They arent going to be the only game in town for long.
But this is interesting: If google excludes AI content, then they are opening themselves to be sued for monopolistic behavior by their competitors, no?
But this is interesting: If google excludes AI content, then they are opening themselves to be sued for monopolistic behavior by their competitors, no?
And Google is saying that they don't want filler content, which makes sense.
Most of their results are SEOed with filler content. Seems they like it very much.
Not only Google, based on HN sentiment, noone wants SEO spam bullshit filling their web either.
They don’t. But it’s pretty obvious Google didn’t care until 2 months ago
They always cared, but wagons of SEO consultants made it their job to figure out how to rank higher without tilting spam detectors.
Has Google really been "outsmarted" by all these SEO consultants? Or is Google smarter than them, but has decided not to use their smarts?
Google search is full of content farm crap, and I don't believe Googlers aren't smart enough to work out how to stop it, if they were truly motivated to do that.
Maybe, someone has decided that content farm crap is better for advertising revenue than real content. Or that the "average user" would rather crap than real. Or that the expected gain in advertising revenue from improving the search is less than the cost of doing so.
Google search is full of content farm crap, and I don't believe Googlers aren't smart enough to work out how to stop it, if they were truly motivated to do that.
Maybe, someone has decided that content farm crap is better for advertising revenue than real content. Or that the "average user" would rather crap than real. Or that the expected gain in advertising revenue from improving the search is less than the cost of doing so.
You are right, probably not.
Do a search for literally anything and see if you think they're being honest.
Does this mean machine translation is no longer permitted? I would guess that's by far the predominant form of AI-generated content on the net today.
Google's stance on machine translated pages has been that they're spam unless a human is in the loop and has curated/reviewed the translation.
Google Cloud's translation API also has a TOS that requires you to tag the output as machine translated if you're publishing it unedited on the web.
Google Cloud's translation API also has a TOS that requires you to tag the output as machine translated if you're publishing it unedited on the web.
So I have a thought here… since ChatGPT is also trained with the content of websites wouldnt there be consequences if at some point it would be ingesting too much of its own output, or the output of other “AI’s”?
Lets say in a couple of years the web and any other global content output gets to a share of 10-20% of “AI” generated content, that would definitely change what it spits out. The question is would that be bad or good?
So in a sense it could be we are now at peak ChatGPT output quality, since the inputs given to it are 99% from humans.
Lets say in a couple of years the web and any other global content output gets to a share of 10-20% of “AI” generated content, that would definitely change what it spits out. The question is would that be bad or good?
So in a sense it could be we are now at peak ChatGPT output quality, since the inputs given to it are 99% from humans.
This is definitely a valid concern. OpenAI did extensive data grooming to ensure high-quality inputs were used as training data. They went out of their way, for instance, to attempt to remove auto-translated content.
One interesting thing is that the situation you describe provides a huge moat for the first successful system. For instance, OpenAI can store and fingerprint all of the output from GPT-3 and ChatGPT. They can use these fingerprints to prevent training newer versions of GPT on old outputs. Less popular systems won't be able to sanitize the training data as well.
One interesting thing is that the situation you describe provides a huge moat for the first successful system. For instance, OpenAI can store and fingerprint all of the output from GPT-3 and ChatGPT. They can use these fingerprints to prevent training newer versions of GPT on old outputs. Less popular systems won't be able to sanitize the training data as well.
I read that GPT adds some “watermarking” to its content to help with detection of pure AI generated content.
Certainly we already need tools for this just like those to detect plagiarism.
Cat and mouse game I know but AIs that can detect AI content seems like a reasonable outcome to me.
Certainly we already need tools for this just like those to detect plagiarism.
Cat and mouse game I know but AIs that can detect AI content seems like a reasonable outcome to me.
Reasonable for a limited amount of time. Eventually down the line someone comes out with an adversarialy trained GPT model that causes a high enough false positive rate that humans trying to use the system get pissed off.
There must be an equilibrium point at some point. I assume the % of AI content will be far higher than 20% in a few years
Some would call that thinking…
Me:
ChatGPT, please write a story about a unique word that has never been used before. I want to see if it ends up in Google.
ChatGPT:
Once upon a time, there was a small town called Schmorgleville. The citizens of Schmorgleville were a strange bunch, and they had an even stranger custom. Every Saturday night, they would gather in the town square and dance the schmorgle.
No one knew exactly where the schmorgle originated from, but it was said to be a dance that had been passed down from generation to generation. It was an odd dance, full of twists and turns and hopping up and down. Everyone in the town seemed to love it, though, and would dance until the sun came up.
One day, a stranger came to town. He was an old man with a long white beard and he seemed to have a great knowledge of the schmorgle. He taught the citizens of Schmorgleville all the steps of the schmorgle and soon, they were all performing it with enthusiasm.
The old man stayed in town for a while and enjoyed watching the citizens of Schmorgleville dance the schmorgle. When he finally left, he told them to keep the schmorgle alive and to never forget the joy it brought them.
And so, the people of Schmorgleville still dance the schmorgle every Saturday night. They call it the 'Schmorgle Dance' and it is a reminder of the old man and the joy he brought to their lives.
ChatGPT, please write a story about a unique word that has never been used before. I want to see if it ends up in Google.
ChatGPT:
Once upon a time, there was a small town called Schmorgleville. The citizens of Schmorgleville were a strange bunch, and they had an even stranger custom. Every Saturday night, they would gather in the town square and dance the schmorgle.
No one knew exactly where the schmorgle originated from, but it was said to be a dance that had been passed down from generation to generation. It was an odd dance, full of twists and turns and hopping up and down. Everyone in the town seemed to love it, though, and would dance until the sun came up.
One day, a stranger came to town. He was an old man with a long white beard and he seemed to have a great knowledge of the schmorgle. He taught the citizens of Schmorgleville all the steps of the schmorgle and soon, they were all performing it with enthusiasm.
The old man stayed in town for a while and enjoyed watching the citizens of Schmorgleville dance the schmorgle. When he finally left, he told them to keep the schmorgle alive and to never forget the joy it brought them.
And so, the people of Schmorgleville still dance the schmorgle every Saturday night. They call it the 'Schmorgle Dance' and it is a reminder of the old man and the joy he brought to their lives.
Schmorgleville is such a Rick & Morty-style neologism. Neat.
I found the potential lyrics:
https://genius.com/Schmorgle-bet-it-all-lyrics
> Google does not consider or support the use of AI writing tools especially for its SEO or Monetization Model. Using them in any ways is considered spam, he adds.
The ad platform was always manually reviewed and was never allowed to have automated writing. Declaring AI written content as automated is hardly news.
The ad platform was always manually reviewed and was never allowed to have automated writing. Declaring AI written content as automated is hardly news.
Was this article AI generated? Can we get an original source instead of this trash?
Good luck having any luck knowing what is generated by the AI
This article is way out of date and wrong, although published recently (at least according to the timestamp).
Google's official position was published on 8 February here:
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-sea...
It's a much more nuanced position that can be summarized as "make sure you create good content, however you create it". A focus on quality, not process, is reasonable.
Disclosure: ex-Googler in search.
Google's official position was published on 8 February here:
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-sea...
It's a much more nuanced position that can be summarized as "make sure you create good content, however you create it". A focus on quality, not process, is reasonable.
Disclosure: ex-Googler in search.
Thanks for the actual source, seems like ex's are often the one who care the most.
About the news article title, looks like it's trendy to make Google seemingly worried about chatGPT. and it's been a trend to claim google penalises its potential competitor via the means it can (search).
With google quality content challenges, it makes sense they would focus on quality, and if AI generated is what make search users click more that's what it will feed most, especially if that's promoted content, as it has always been.
About the news article title, looks like it's trendy to make Google seemingly worried about chatGPT. and it's been a trend to claim google penalises its potential competitor via the means it can (search).
With google quality content challenges, it makes sense they would focus on quality, and if AI generated is what make search users click more that's what it will feed most, especially if that's promoted content, as it has always been.
This is false.
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-sea...
Unless "Steadipulse.com" is now the new canonical source for Google's webmaster guidelines, AI content is fine as long as it's human reviewed. Spam is still spam, and they consider unreviewed/unedited AI content to be untrustworthy.
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-sea...
Unless "Steadipulse.com" is now the new canonical source for Google's webmaster guidelines, AI content is fine as long as it's human reviewed. Spam is still spam, and they consider unreviewed/unedited AI content to be untrustworthy.
She's just been hired by a client to copywrite ChatGPT-generated blog content to make it "more human." Ordinarily it takes her about 3 hours to author a blog post for a client. Now it takes her 30 minutes to "fix up" a ChatGPT-generated blog post, saving the client about 2.5 hours of copywriting expense.
She's beside herself that she's no longer getting paid to author content but is instead fixing up machine-generated content so that Google doesn't penalize the ranking. I get the sense that we are now in a cat-and-mouse game between the AI models used to generate content and the AI models used to detect AI-generated content, and people like my friend will soon be out of a job entirely.