AI-based search would be considerably more expensive per query for Google

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,011   +301
Staff
Why it matters: ChatGPT and AI, the new overused buzzwords of the technology world that make investors and shareholders drool, have a huge cost that grows proportionally to the size of a company. For a giant like Google, this means an AI-based search engine would have a significant impact on revenues and net income.

Right now, everyone is talking about ChatGPT and how machine learning-based language models will change the future of everything. Chatbots' growing popularity is wreaking havoc in the web search industry in particular, so much so that Google felt the need to rush the debut of the company's own chat-based search model just a bit ahead of its time.

Aside from the theoretical advancements and disruption capabilities of ChatGPT, one thing is already certain: managing and running a search service heavily based on chatbot technology would be incredibly expensive. In an interview with Reuters, Alphabet Chairman John Hennessy said that a single (user) exchange with an AI-powered search service "likely costs ten times more than a standard keyword search."

The reason for this huge jump in costs is how current web search works behind the scenes. Google is building and maintaining a massive database of websites and other document types available on the internet, sending its crawlers around to index new or updated content to keep the database relevant. When a search query is performed, Google's search engine digs inside the database to rank and categorize its contents to finally provide search results (SERP) to the end user.

An ML-based chatbot is built upon a completely different technology paradigm: with every single search, the massive neural network model must be interpreted to generate a bunch of text (hopefully) related to the user's prompt. The probable need to also query the aforementioned web index to check factual information, and the fact that a chatbot would likely require a longer interaction than a search engine, would only add yet more computational efforts to an already complex and expensive service.

According to experts consulted by Reuters, this complexity would bring a significant cut in Google's $60 billion net income. Morgan Stanley said a chatbot would cost Google $6 billion per year for handling half the total search queries with 50-word answers, while consulting firm SemiAnalysis estimates a $3 billion additional cost.

Google's traditional web search is extremely fast, usually taking less than a second to provide users meaningful SERP results. A chatbot-based search, however, would be much slower and computationally intensive. This last problem could be solved in a few years, Hennessy said, but the expense required for this technological advancement could be too much even for Google.

For now, Mountain View is thinking about ways to implement a "lightweight model version" of its newly introduced Bard chatbot, a solution requiring "significantly less computing power," which gives the company a chance to scale to more users and get better feedback.

Permalink to story.

 
It might be more expensive per search than what they are currently doing, but if people are choosing not to use your search engine because other people ARE OFFERING that style of search you'll lose customers, not just revenue. For a company who's entire business model is based on collecting and selling user data to advertisers, losing users is out of the question

I hope this is Google's Kodak moment. Kodak became nearly irrelevant because they didn't want to invest in digital photography, I hope google fails because they're reluctant to invest in AI based searches.

I would like to cite Windows Phone as an operating system here. It was objectively better than android in every way OTHER than app support. The only reason it failed was because Microsoft missed the smartphone market by only about a year to 18 months. The iPhone was released and android grew considerably along side it. MS thought it was a gimmick. By the time they realized smartphones weren't a gimmick, all the developers had moved to either iOS or Android.

Google is not immune to being late to the game.
 
ChatBots for search will be a huge problem to google bottom line, which is entirely based on making it harder and more time consuming to get to the info we're looking for so google can make ad money while you sift through a bunch of different sites and ads to get an answer to a query. BingChat solves that problem and I would gladly pay a subscription fee for BingChat if I had to. It's so much better for finding information than google, it makes google feel entirely outdated. Google will have a hard time restructuring their business model.
 
ChatBots for search will be a huge problem to google bottom line, which is entirely based on making it harder and more time consuming to get to the info we're looking for so google can make ad money while you sift through a bunch of different sites and ads to get an answer to a query. BingChat solves that problem and I would gladly pay a subscription fee for BingChat if I had to. It's so much better for finding information than google, it makes google feel entirely outdated. Google will have a hard time restructuring their business model.
I love the bing chat bot, it's so broken it's beautiful. You'd think Microsoft would have learned after Tay AI Chatbot problem they had. I honestly see some of Tay in the Bing chatbot responses.
 
I love the bing chat bot, it's so broken it's beautiful. You'd think Microsoft would have learned after Tay AI Chatbot problem they had. I honestly see some of Tay in the Bing chatbot responses.
That is an ignorant and short sided perspective. Yes, it's easy enough to get some strange replies from a chatbot if you want to play around with it, and just like information online can be wrong, so can a chatbot; however when used properly for it's intended purpose, it's extremely effective.
 
That is an ignorant and short sided perspective. Yes, it's easy enough to get some strange replies from a chatbot if you want to play around with it, and just like information online can be wrong, so can a chatbot; however when used properly for it's intended purpose, it's extremely effective.
my sides are indeed short from laughing so hard, yes. The bing chat bot is very broken right now. I use it for it's intended purpose but even then, some of the crap I get back from it is hilarious. There is a reason they have limited it to only 5 replies and I have no doubt some of the seed material MS used to develop it came from TayAI. I see TayAI as very obvious in the bing chat bot. It came out too quickly and is too broken for MS not to have taken some shortcuts somewhere
 
my sides are indeed short from laughing so hard, yes. The bing chat bot is very broken right now. I use it for it's intended purpose but even then, some of the crap I get back from it is hilarious. There is a reason they have limited it to only 5 replies and I have no doubt some of the seed material MS used to develop it came from TayAI. I see TayAI as very obvious in the bing chat bot. It came out too quickly and is too broken for MS not to have taken some shortcuts somewhere
BingChat is based on ChatGPT, I don't think it has anything to do with Tay.

Errors or not, I don't think it can be understated how much of a time saver this will be for a lot of various search and text related tasks in general. People may have to adjust their expectations with this type of AI and use it as a time saver, but also one that needs the user to check it's work... which really, should be obvious.
 
Kodak became nearly irrelevant because they didn't want to invest in digital photography,
Kodak - nearly irrelevant - they are only a shadow of their former self with something like 1,000 or so employees when they employed, at their height, something like 60,000+.

The main reason Kodak did not want to invest in digital photography is because they foresaw the end of film and paper and film and paper was their bread and butter.

Who knows what Google will do, but I think this, AI that is, might be yet another fad with its 15-minutes of fame and then when those 15-minutes are up, it will die out.
 
How much would it cost Google to stop removing so much content?

The Internet is supposed to be growing rapidly and yet it's very easy to get to the end of search results these days.
 
Sharing desks and chairs, not having money for AI... did someone take all the money from the Google sock? Maybe their sponsors, who made them initially rich are now asking their money back?
 
Back