this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
147 points (96.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

43884 readers
324 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It's hard to put this into words succinctly. But when I was a kid before the Internet, the library was the main source of human knowledge, and it was very organized through the Dewey Decimal System which imposed a kind of tree-like hierarchy across a wide spectrum of topics. And while I imagined that one day this might all wind up served by computers, I thought this organization would survive the transition. But it didn't.

I suppose in the early days of the Internet, they tried? Yahoo was kind of an Internet directory in the beginning, and the Whole Internet catalog was another such effort. But these eventually fell apart and we had to resort to search engines to find anything. Frankly, it's a bit like the early days of personal computing when we used flat file systems instead of hierarchical ones with proper directory trees. When you were limited to what could fit on a floppy, this wasn't such a big burden. But the Internet as it stands might as well be a giant flat file system.

Today, even the search engines are failing us, and we are turning to AI. In the pre-Internet era, we had sort of an equivalent to this also. They were called librarians. But a librarian's job was made easier by the fact that all the books were carefully organized by topic. For AI, it's as though the library were just a massive pile of books tossed around haphazardly and the librarian had to make sense of it enough to pull whatever you're looking for out of the chaos. Is it at all surprising, then, that it takes a huge amount of energy and computing resources to make any of this work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tunetardis@piefed.ca 17 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Ah, so you're saying it's more of an enshitification thing that killed the search engines? I can believe that to an extent.

But as the amount of content on the Internet has increased, it's also become more difficult to narrow the queries to get what you're really looking for. The main thing for me with AI is it allows you to refine the search without discarding the context of what you have already tried.

If the content were more organized to begin with, though, I suspect you could drill a bit deeper into the knowledge tree and then apply your conventional (non-AI) search over a more relevant branch?

[–] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Let's not forget Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and content farms which were actively corrupting (adding entropy to) search engine results even before LLMs, yay capitalism. They've dialed it to twelve with LLMs.

[–] tunetardis@piefed.ca 5 points 1 day ago

Heh, I had actually forgotten about that. It seems almost quaint compared to where we're at now.

[–] morto@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

It's not just increase in content. Search engines don't even do searches based on keywords or logic operators anymore. They run some NLP on the query input and do who knows what to give you results. If we could still make searcher that contain specifically certain terms or exclude others, it would be still possible to navigate into the mess

[–] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Google has a financial incentive for you to spend more time on their site. If you are gone in one click, you see less ads. Same problem with dating platforms. The user's interest is in conflict with the platform's.

There are leaks/interviews how their search and ads teams were at a conflict internally, ofc money won.

[–] Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Does the ad revenue account for people who hardly realize the ads are even there?

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 14 hours ago

If you hardly realize they're even there, you're more likely to click on them since most advertisers pay to be shown on relevant searches, not random ones.

E.g if you run a pet food store, you'll let Google show your store whenever pet related things are searched for. And that's where having a blog comes in handy, you can have it show articles relevant to the search rather than just the store front page.

[–] jellyfishhunter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Search algorithms are meant to work regardless of the amount of content or sorting. Page rank used to be a game changer back then to sort websites by relevance.

AI has no search algorithms. It's about 1000% less efficient, because its algorithms are built for token prediction, not sifting through websites.

So yeah, my money is on enshitification.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

AI has no search algorithms. It’s about 1000% less efficient, because its algorithms are built for token prediction, not sifting through websites.

It doesn't need to; It just relies on the normal web search to get better data than what it could generate from its training data alone. This wasn't a thing with the early popular LLM interfaces, which is why they were ridiculously bad. They still make plenty of mistakes, but at least now you get a link to what it looked up (so you can facepalm when you see it's way too generic and your question was very specific, so the generated answer is still wrong)

[–] jellyfishhunter@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

I often get dead links or those that state something completely different from what the LLM says. If we'd just cut out AI as the middleman, oh well. 🥲