No one has a right to your attention without your prior constent and your total inviolable control over the price and the power of instant unilateral revocation. No one has a right to interrupt or distract you without the same as a permanent precondition.
No one can sell your attention without your permission without speech being reduced to a system of bribery and censorship with rights and privacy erroding to the point that people are reduced to property with the implied complete loss of personhood. Attention cannot be involutarily sold without ultimately completely commoditizing human beings themselves. No one has a right to enclose your attention or rent seek upon it as allowing this nulifies your self determination and strips you of volition which kills freedom.
Accurate secure search, free of conflicts of interest and free of bribes and sponsorship which corrupt and skew the search results, provides a way to connect buyers and sellers without pitting buyers and sellers against each other. Accurate search provides a way of truth matching. Search is at the core of AI.
Open honest accurate decentralized search is the way to free the global network of spam and reprioritize actual human speech sending it to the front of the line where it blongs so we can hear each other over the rights dilutions (corporate rights) and drowning out censorship which has worked to isolate and defeat us.
Search is the final commons, its our collective pursuit of real solutions.
How do you decentralize it? Search by nature is the result of collecting, processing, storing, looking up, delivering data, and much of those things can be done in virtually infinite number of ways, none of which is the “one right solution”. That implies we can’t have it built in to the network itself—somebody, some random person or company, will have to do it.
So, search results will not be coming from some God-like entity, the Magical Network itself. When you ask a question, the response will be put together by a computer under someone’s control (or at least code provided by that somebody, outsourced to nodes across the network), and who that someone is will (or at least could) be even less obvious than it is now. How that somebody “matches truth” will be just as arbitrary as it is today and the Safe network can’t fix that.
All the above is almost insignificant compared to the actual problem: we can’t even define what an “honest and accurate” (unbiased) result is.
You brought up AI, but we’ve seen that machine learning models develop biases even without any deliberate action on the part of their masters. Should we adjust the training data so as to remove such biases or should we just let the machine replicate them since they are “truth” in the sense that’s how humans, who produced that data in the first place, think?
The first can be done in a virtually unlimited number of ways and the second assumption is false: “that’s what the data we had access suggest they think” is a more accurate description. Nevertheless, both of these approaches can be considered seeking truth from a given point of view and yet not only are they mutually exclusive but will each invoke the wrath of one side of the population and the adoration of the other.
Frankly, whenever a see an idealist proclaim it’s their right to define how to reach to the pure, unfiltered truth, I get cold shivers because we’ve seen plenty of examples of uncompromising idealists with high goals and great intentions causing innumerable suffering. Let’s try to avoid that, should we?
Instead of a perfect solution, I’d be happy if we had a large enough variety of conflicting opinions float around, each with their own approach of truth, each serving their particular niche, and that includes a number of search providers, each with their own idiosyncratic biases, some of which I’ll hate, some of which I’ll like.
This makes no sense, sorry. Exchange has always, and naturally, included an “against” component. The better the price from the seller’s point of view, the worse it is from the buyer’s. If the seller knows somebody is likely to buy their stuff for more than what the buyer’s offering, they’ll wait. If the buyer thinks they’ll get the stuff for less someplace else, they won’t buy it here. I don’t know what else to say, it’s beyond trivial. You’ll see people engage in such exchanges with each other even in the most communist of countries.
Opencola – A developer of distributed content search technology for knowledge workers. They arguably never managed to deliver a final software product, but they did come up with a knock-off soft drink. http://wiki.c2.com/?OpenCola
As I see it, Search is a matter of indexing, and the metadata related to the data linked to the index.
Such metadata can be referenced from the metadata in the object data itself, or added on by the indexer.
Can the “network” perform these functions? I think not, not and remain an “open”, “unbiased” platform–especially from the perspective of SAFE, which is designed to be autonomous and basically mechanical in its handling of data.
So, as far as I can see, Search is always going to be “on top” of, and basically separate from, basic network function. It will therefore ALWAYS be subject to bias from some angle or another, even if the attempt is made to not be.
Google has the strong position it has mostly because its search database and result-serving algorithms are proprietary, and hidden. Also, the results are always served through its centralized control.
If its database and algos were open-sourced it would go a long way to loosening its stranglehold–which may be coming with antitrust moves. But there’s still the results-serving problem. As long as they can identify the client by IP, cookies, etc., they have a big lever of mental and behavioral control.
So open-sourced indexing on SAFE would be a must for any search I would prefer, generally, but I wouldn’t mind having various IDs that laid in specific biases or preferences for different purposes, as long as they could be anonymous. These things could be accomplished using an off-network service that interfaces with SAFE.
The question then is the incentives. Since the there is a free-to-cheap priority in SAFE providing an open network, how do add-on search competitors maintain themselves? Google does it with the “free if you’re naked to us” model under the current setup.
So perhaps it would be worth considering:
What different business models would allow competition for an anonymous interface?
Would advertisement be a possible or workable path? Why and why not?
What other incentives are there that could provide competition of flavors, especially by different definitions of “unbiased,” which are always going to be opinion-based?
Not ads that is a slippery slope that leads as we have seen to people selling what does not belong to them (theft of attention, enclosure of attention, loss of privacy and by impication loss of freedom or exploitation) and a politics based on a culture of bribery with the implication of civil wars in the face of existential tech. Commercial speech gets privileged over essential political speech and we get the elevation of people who think everyone has a price and the size of a bribe matters such that its generally a mitigating factor to the point of exoneration instead of a felonious aggravator. In short it leads to capture of law by money or law as crime.
As far as the basis for truth matching, yes its approximate or fliud to an extent but should make the world more transparent and maybe it entails benevolent AGI or SI.
Is there no security or efficiency advantage to internalizing and automating search? If not the network can at least prioritize search function for a top layer with its internal routines? Just to remain coherant to a requisite degree it already must have the decentralized rudiments? Also demand for efficient search is implied in many of the app requests no?
I agree, and this is one of the reasons I wouldn’t want to see a merger of the address bar and a search bar, as discussed in another thread. See what I mean?
I personally hate the fact that Google serves me links to what they think I want to see, instead of links to what I actually said I was searching for. Being able to use regular expressions in searches would be wonderful, but I’m not sure how much processing power that would require, or whether it’s feasible on such a large corpus as the current internet.
What the devil is “globalized truth”? Is it different from “nationalized truth”?
Referring to this sad fact as “globalized truth” is strange to me. But thank you for the explanation. I’m a bit allergic to what I feel are empty fashion words like “globalization”, as well as e.g. the oversimplified false dichotomy that all political thought is either right-wing or left-wing. But I’m going off topic, so sorry.
Clearly, we can’t have a “made by Google, so default to Google” search bar as customary. Now that you brought it up, I think that’s exactly what we’ll have in the end, customized versions of the Safe Browser by companies running search services on the Safe network… Just wait and remember, I called it first
I’m sorry, @Warren. Aside from the clear sense of angst and dissatisfaction, I really can’t make out what you’re saying or proposing that might resolve the conflict you’re promoting, aside from pushing back on undefined entities of social injustice in general.
Ads can’t be the basis. Push anything can’t be the basis. And strong search backed by the potential of AI should mean buyers find products without any push and in a way that cuts through attempts at product misrepresentation or hyping by ad firms- it should put them out of business or filter their role to an obsolete nothing. Tesla already benefits from that just by word of mouth and better products in the light of search. Instead of having ad agencies benefit by creating layers of successive misrepresentation between buyers and sellers for profit cheapening out products with money wasted on this misrepresentation and manipulation, instead search automates them out disintermediating them and their misrep and puffing business and instead a direct relation develops between buyers and sellers. This also gets rid of lie/sponsor captured media which leads to capture of candidates and law and consolidation around a money megaphone. Kind of like content on SAFE should follow a model where people pay if at all only after the fact and if they deem it worthwhile and only what they think its worth for the work and/or to prime the pump for future works. This protects critical democratic end user power. The only real stake holder here is the public and the commons which exists in the majority for the public’s benefit.
People don’t get the power of search.
Google is the authority in the world
A central point of failure
Very close to raw thought control affecting a majority.
If a network is a solar system, search is the star at its center. Search is the network’s useful connectome. If the network is the map, search is the auto pilot.
On point #3. people litetally build their memories and habits and world views around the Google search pattern, its their epistemological point of reference and they are cybernetically wed to it by conditioning. When Google talks about organizing the world’s information its actually captured people’s psychic reality. And that shouldn’t be based on attention theft and the bribery-censorship-lying known as sponsorship. The essence of sponsorship is literally beytral, it is the dirtiest word in the history of language. It means selling out. Should that corrupting darkness be the basis of a process meant to shed light?
Lets hammer this home.
Tomorrow people wake up to every Google search displaying only this message: The USG has been attempting to sieze our search product for the purpose of propaganda and fixing elections both foreign and domestic. We therefore have taken our search platform down permanently by wiping all its files and back ups and permanently disabling its hardware through electrical overloading.
There are no workable substitutes for Google.
Lets say Google was hacked and for days every querry would only bring up dox files on GOP and Torrie politicians and their sponsors? No more GOP or Torries. Say it did it on fossil fuel oligarchs- it would shorten the remaining life of the fossil fuel industry radically. It could remove Donald Trump from office in a matter of hours. It could un-fix an election. Lets say something like this started to happen, do we think the USG could take Google off line for any period of time without a meltdown? No.
Google could outright kill Wall St over a short period of time, no trade stop could stop Google from reducing the value of stocks and derivatives to 1/10. It could do it subtly and we couldn’t stop it.
Google will decide elections around the world over the next 5 years. Google could disrupt or reboot corruption around the world overnight, but Google has been corrupted just by the sponsor seed mechanism which it grew around. Trump is apparently trying to interfere with elections right now and all the US AGs are going after Google right now. Musk has said Google is the AI threat. And Google has predicted that all computers or the primary source of computation shortly will be quantum AI neural net learning machines running in the cloud. Google is the center but its a for profit eating machine at heart, it is inherantly untrustworthy but it is also more powerful than any government- if you say it can’t start WWIII, I’d beg to differ, it might not be able to start it as quickly but it can weaponize any government and start it just as surely.
And just as Governments want to control winner take all SAI, Google has to be the target of every government because it is attempting to develop SAI, is a great bet for the lead and attempting to make it the heart of its already invincible search product which already is the defacto authority in the world.