[HN Gopher] AI chatbots are not a replacement for search engines
___________________________________________________________________
AI chatbots are not a replacement for search engines
Author : jiwidi
Score : 43 points
Date : 2022-12-25 21:31 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (iai.tv)
(TXT) w3m dump (iai.tv)
| kewrkewm53 wrote:
| Right now I find ChatGTP excellent for certain technical topics
| I'm familiar with, but can't recall the details. It saves me the
| time of looking for an example from stackoverflow/tutorial
| blogs/official documentation, and gives me just the piece I want
| - things like syntax, which libraries/modules to use etc.
| geoffreypoirier wrote:
| Completely agree. It's my fast rust remover for when diving
| back in, plus gives me the strong leads on docs, syntax,
| modules.
| type4 wrote:
| It seems the only thing that's missing is some type of fact-
| checking function. The interaction, from a user perspective, is
| much nicer than sorting through Google results.But the results
| can be confidentially wrong and if you're not familiar with the
| subject matter already, you won't really know that.
|
| That said, I'm basically using it as a replacement for Google for
| stuff that isn't up-to-date (code, philosophy) then double
| checking the output to see how it's wrong.
| m_mueller wrote:
| and by extension: the ability and expression of doubt /
| humility. knowing what you don't know is when you reach a
| certain maturity, which so far all these AIs seem to lack.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| That's not particularly different from comments on HackerNews
| and Reddit. There's a lot of extremely confident and very
| wrong answers on both sites!
|
| ChatGPT is probably more wrong more often, by a good margin.
| But I don't think the argument "it's confidently wrong"
| carries any weight. Humans are extremely susceptible to
| humans who display confidence. It'd probably be a good thing
| if humans were as skeptical of confident humans as they need
| to be of confident chat/search bots.
| smadge wrote:
| The problem is that fact checking functionality is a harder
| NLP/ML problem than bullshit generation.
| maremmano wrote:
| Sundararajan is it you?
|
| unfortunately (or fortunately) it is a matter of time.
| n0tth3dro1ds wrote:
| I agree that chat bots aren't the proper modality for replacing
| search. So what? Currently, Google search results stink. ChatGPT
| results are way better in a number of domains. Does it need to be
| a chat bot? No. But Google still stinks now. I'll take anything
| that can just find the correct information.
| lerchmo wrote:
| Google search results are a vortex of perverse incentives and
| double dipping. The fact that google ranks horrible CPM
| arbitrage websites for nearly everything AND monetizes these
| websites... yuck. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine
| how some of these AI Models could leverage a search index +
| something like wolfram alpha to generate a much more targeted
| and valuable search result.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _it doesn 't take a rocket scientist to imagine how some of
| these AI Models could leverage a search index + something
| like wolfram alpha to generate a much more targeted and
| valuable search result._
|
| Sure but the problem with the rocket scientists is they think
| about how good things can be, not how evil they can be. Sure,
| a chat bot could be made to give very valuable-to the end
| user results but as it will free like Google, results
| yielding-profits-to-company will be given, in the fashion you
| describe Google doing.
| lerchmo wrote:
| That is the back side of the arc, the (maybe inevitable)
| decline into collecting monopoly profits. I think people
| are excited about these language models as way to crack the
| Monopoly with something that delivers more value to users.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Google certainly sinks for my purposes. But these current
| results are exactly what happens a company carefully calculates
| the monetization involved in retrieving information. Open AI
| isn't calculating the monetization of ChatGPT's answers and
| doesn't have a real business plan (paid chat won't go further
| than paid search imo). The thing is, once Open AI engages in
| the calculations done by Google, having the results seem to
| come from an "intelligence" can only make the effect worse
| (though I suspect Google will also tend to look like an
| intelligence/chatbot too as things progress, the future looks
| ugly)
| megablast wrote:
| Google has ruined the web. Look what they did to recipe sites??
| Truly awful.
|
| And there used to be sites that answered the question on the
| search page. Google pushed them to the bottom.
| lerchmo wrote:
| Yeah, they are responsible for those 5 minute scroll sessions
| above the recipes. They rank and monetize those horrible
| sites.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I've stopped using unqualified Google searches for recipes.
| Limiting results to allrecipes.com helps a fair amount
| (they're a pretty unobnoxious site as things go). It's
| telling that Google doesn't rank them higher.
| charcircuit wrote:
| How does Google stink? I've never had an issue with. What query
| does it struggle with?
| williamtrask wrote:
| This is a great point.
|
| Followup question - is LLM tech more or less likely to end up
| replacing search when those same incentives really saturate the
| LLM product itself.
|
| One big difference seems to be attribution. LLMs don't tell you
| where their info comes from. They just say what is (but can be
| asked to cite works - with mixed results).
|
| Will LLMs get good at citing sources and if not will people
| care or will they give in to LLMs as a source of information
| that's "good enough because it mostly works"
|
| From a product placement / ads perspective, being able to
| persuade people to fully accept everything an ad-infused LLM
| says because it's good enough seems like an incredibly
| lucrative product bundling opportunity if they can get it
| right. Esp. If they can use that to convince regulators they
| can't annotate the difference between ads and non ads.
|
| Seems pretty dystopian from a disinformation perspective
| though.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| Without wanting to be facetious, the single word response that
| comes to mind is "yet".
| joe_the_user wrote:
| Google is more "chatty" than it was a few years ago and ChatGPT
| is a quickly moving target it seems - it's answers seem more
| "search-like" than they seemed when I started playing with it
| just a few weeks ago (more caveats and more likely to give
| multiple options, etc). It seems like we'll have fusion soon.
|
| I agree the results will be unpleasant. I already despise
| Google's fucking "looks like there aren't many results" message
| and there will be more to hate down the road. But still,
| appearing to give "an answer" rather than reporting information
| seems like a winning quality to bring in the masses. As someone
| pointed out, Google's target audience is inherently those
| credulous enough to be valuable targets for their advertisers.
| mc32 wrote:
| The big drawback chatGPT has is that on many topics it walks on
| eggshells.
|
| It can't give me a direct answer. It couches the answers in
| nonsensical caveats. Adding stilted context that really does not
| add value to an answer and actually makes the search more
| tedious.
|
| If I ask it the male female breakdown for crime statistics it
| begins to get defensive and gives me general answers. I can prod
| it to finally give me government statistics but it doest it
| begrudgingly. And that's for a far away country not steeped in
| any unusual crime controversy.
| permo-w wrote:
| you can say a lot about Google, but at least they've never sat
| down and said "no more porn", or blocked specific words from
| being searched, which is a little surprising actually. I'm sure
| bigger advertisers will have broached the subject on many
| occasions
| nomel wrote:
| A chat bot isn't allowed to use external APIs or present things
| besides conversational text? Seems short sighted.
|
| Todays chat bots should be considered dumb prototypes, when
| thinking about even the near future.
| shagie wrote:
| Today's chatbots are complex language models based on the
| language that they were trained on.
|
| They are very clever at transforming data into language, or one
| language into another... but they work on _language_ and not
| _knowledge_.
|
| It would be interesting to see a language model identify the
| necessary resources to fulfill a query which is then fed back
| into it to transform the dry data back into language.
| Identify if the question is looking for weather, sports scores,
| unit conversion, general knowlege, or business information for
| the following requests: 1. "What is the high
| temperature tommorow?" 2. "Did the packers win last
| night?" 3. "What time does Walmart open?" 4.
| "What will it rain next week?" 5. "Where can I buy an
| umbrella?" 6. "How many feet are in a mile?"
| Question classification:
|
| To which GPT responded: 1. Weather 2.
| Sports Scores 3. Business Information 4.
| Weather 5. Business Information 6. Unit
| Conversion
|
| Using this, it should then be sent to a system that knows how
| to do those queries and return back data.
|
| However, doing that integration isn't the place for today's
| chatbots - or at least not the place for OpenAI to be trying to
| do all the possible things. Those queries _also_ cost money and
| become harder to bill for.
| lerchmo wrote:
| I mean you can give chatgtp API docs and it will write the
| actual code to find the answers.
| shagie wrote:
| Do you trust it to write that bug free?
|
| Where are you putting the API key to access those services?
|
| Where does it run the code that it wrote and how does it
| provision those resources?
| christmaspizza wrote:
| Yeah this is a weird take. Chat bots are improving rapidly,
| increasingly used in real applications. With more targeted
| applications, like a "search engine" for coding, I could see
| these being very powerful. It's weird to write an article
| discounting that based on how the current ChatGPT application,
| a research beta, operates and throwing out some fear-based
| morality.
| userbinator wrote:
| They are not a replacement, but unfortunately search engines are
| turning into AI chatbots too.
|
| When I think of a search engine I want a "grep for the Internet",
| not an "AI".
|
| Looking up part numbers for ICs and other electronic components
| is the most prominent application where search engines like
| Google have gotten far worse in recent years, and AI ain't going
| to work there either.
| enlyth wrote:
| A grep for the internet is what most of us technical users
| want, but they are optimizing for the more common user who
| structures queries more like natural language (e.g. "How can I
| tie my shoelaces so they don't get untied easily") instead of
| what me or you would query ("secure shoelace knots")
|
| I'm surprised there hasn't been a separation of some sort of
| more technical search engine for developers and the classic
| Google experience where some neural network tries to make sense
| of your poorly written human language phrased question
| rtkwe wrote:
| We used to have just Internet grep but it was awful because
| sites just slammed tons of keywords into invisible text to
| get fake traffic. That's what spawned the original innovation
| at Google of PageRank and thus the SEO wars started. Going
| back to that wouldn't solve the issue with modern search.
| skwirl wrote:
| Mods need to edit the headline of this to match the title of the
| page. Nothing stating or implying this headline appear in the
| article and it feels like an attempt to troll HN.
| asimjalis wrote:
| Eventually Chatbots will start inserting product placement ads as
| well. So comparing the ads on Google with the ad free ChatGPT
| experience is detracting from the real value of ChatGPT.
|
| Google results are mostly ok. But I have to do the synthesis.
| ChatGPT does the synthesis for me saving me time and mental
| bandwidth. This is the part that I find valuable.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| "Have you tried Bing? It's great for questions like this."
| halukakin wrote:
| Today I experienced just the opposite. Chatgpt answered some
| business questions in less than a minute. I would have spent 30
| mins in seo optimized sites to find the exact same info.
| kmoser wrote:
| It's only a matter of time before ChatGPT is monetized to slip
| in some paid content, similar to product placement. Until then,
| I'm sure bright minds are already working on ways to ensure it
| feeds on data tainted with their own agendas.
| bombcar wrote:
| How do you verify that chatgpt answers are correct? (And to be
| honest, how do you gauge the correctness of random internet
| sites)?
| TOMDM wrote:
| To speak to GP's point, a number of times already I've failed
| to find something immediately on Google, asked chatgpt,
| gotten an answer and then used Google to verify chatgpt's
| answer.
|
| Google is great if you already know exactly what you're
| looking for, for a lot of topics chatgpt is already better
| than Google if you don't
| mustafabisic1 wrote:
| But they have the potential. We'll see if it breaks into public.
|
| People at some point were even saying Tikto will replace search
| engines.
|
| Both of which can still happen.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| I don't think they do. At least not in a safe way. The AI
| doesn't understand meaning or the underlying material and
| concepts. I'm sure filters will be put into a pipeline but it
| will never be as good as letting the human sniff out the
| correct answers.
| lerchmo wrote:
| "Will never be" is an overly confident statement for any
| technical field. Predicting the future is hard and predicting
| the future with an un-bounded time horizon is pretty near
| impossible.
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| Today I asked chatGPT what Einstein's favourite food was. It
| gave a reasonable answer about him liking simple foods. The
| worrying thing is that I was satisfied with the result. It
| was plausible. It could well be true. There is a good chance
| that this kind of AI might provide the right kind of response
| that a large percentage of the public find convincing enough
| to not bother with additional research.
| eastbound wrote:
| The universal truth for people is often different than the
| truth, and AI has to return the convenient truth.
|
| Example. People are persuaded that women can do two things
| at the same time and men cannot. Despite countless
| counterexamples, the original study positioning everyone on
| a bell curve with only 6% difference in time of execution,
| and without checking for the quality of the results ("254
| plus 786 equals 126 quick mafs!!!"), it is blatantly false,
| but any search engine that would return that it is false
| would make itself rejected by humans.
| bombcar wrote:
| This reminds me of an article about how phones killed
| ripley's believe it or not and the Guinness book of records
| - both of which are kind of like "solidified" bar
| conversation. Now if someone at the bar asks about
| Einstein's favorite foods, people just whip out phones and
| find an answer (doesn't even have to be correct) and the
| conversation ends. Before you could go all night discussing
| it from attempts at first principles - you might be
| entirely wrong but you had fun.
| nomel wrote:
| Are we talking about chat bots, or their implementations in
| 2022?
| [deleted]
| KhoomeiK wrote:
| Recent paper showing how LMs "struggle with less popular factual
| knowledge, and that scaling fails to appreciably improve
| memorization of factual knowledge in the tail". In other words,
| simply scaling LLMs will not result in replacing Google as a
| search engine. Approaches like theirs ie retrieval augmentation
| are needed.
|
| https://akariasai.github.io/files/llm_memorization.pdf
|
| This is essentially what I'm building for the content marketing
| vertical.
| [deleted]
| TOMDM wrote:
| Today I wanted to mute the bark on windows 11.
|
| Not knowing the terminology, Google was useless.
|
| I ask chatgpt and it tells me how to mute notifications, I
| clarify "no the thing where you're typing and windows can't do it
| so it plays a sound" and chatgpt happily informed me on how to
| mute the windows hard stop sound.
|
| For situations where you don't really know what you're looking
| for, chatgpt is already competitive with Google. Failing
| abysmally in some cases, and far surpassing Google in others.
| yakattak wrote:
| I worked on a chat bot to help solve technical issues. It would
| parse what the user wanted and then search the already
| established articles we had that were ingested into
| Elasticsearch.
|
| At first, we started with a goal of fully conversational AI. So,
| for example, it would ask a question based on the article and
| give you a choice, you could then type your choice. This became a
| nightmare for the model so we added buttons instead.
|
| Then, before we knew it, this "bot" was just a glorified search
| engine that feigned being a bot. Towards the end of it I
| scratched my head and said "did we even replace the current
| knowledgebase? are we spending thousands on something that adds
| no value?"
|
| I don't think chatbots are it either. I think we could have just
| replaced the KB search with Elasticsearch and been done with it,
| no need for any ML.
| thexumaker wrote:
| Yep had the same realization a while back building something
| similar for our internal docs on notion for a hackathon. I
| realized that if notion just had a better search engine we
| wouldn't need anything else built on top
| nunodonato wrote:
| Can you elaborate on what the problem was? What became a
| nightmare for the model?
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| Counter-point: Yes they are. I'm already successfully using
| ChatGPT as a Google replacement for many types of searches.
|
| You're welcome to argue it isn't a replacement. And yet my own
| two eyes observe indisputable evidence to the contrary.
| skilled wrote:
| When ChatGPT came out I used it to do 100 hours worth of work in
| 10 hours or so. But it still felt like work. And for more
| intricate use cases it is just easier to do traditional research.
|
| We're safe for a while still. And when I say we I mean writers.
| ArjenM wrote:
| It's like putting a dusty book back on the digital shelve, now
| you need to have a conversation to do a simple search query
| that's hidden in marketing gibberish?
|
| I'm, still seeing the whole push in this product range hang with
| the call to make the search functions of most search engines more
| garbage than the actual chatbot.
|
| As if Marketing is steering this ship.
|
| I'm sticking to my own knowledge and trusted independent sources
| for now, no need to have something make up an entire world for
| you, just to trap you in a cage of ones own making for real this
| time?
| gkoberger wrote:
| I mean, ChatGPT came out 2 weeks ago.
|
| By the time Google even was started, Excite had been searching
| the web for 7 years and Lycos had been around for 3 years.
|
| I don't think it's a 1:1 replacement, but let's not judge a
| product that's been out for less than a month against a trillion
| dollar behemoth that launched 24 years ago.
| gumboza wrote:
| They're not a replacement but they will be generating so much
| credible indexable garbage that they will reduce the signal to
| noise ratio to the point that they are useless.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| They absolutely are, whoever wrote this has no idea what they're
| talking about.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Maybe not, but it's already very useful.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| What I haven't seen here, is that AI chatbots remove the
| discovery process.
|
| While you can get an option from a chatbot for your specific
| request, sometimes you can get something better while googling
| for possible solutions.
| gvurrdon wrote:
| Assuming this refers to https://chat.openai.com/, it's rather
| difficult to try it out. After creating an account it demanded a
| phone number. Of course, I will not supply my own, and temporary
| ones I tried were either recognised as such or rejected has
| having already been used.
| gukov wrote:
| The way I see it:
|
| - Today's search engines will give you links to millions of
| documents
|
| - ChatGPT, if asked correctly, will instead generate one perfect
| document based on millions of the documents
|
| To me, that's a clear evolution of the search engine, especially
| with all the SEO & ad spam that's plaguing Google and others
| currently.
|
| I wasn't ready to pay a monthly fee for an ad-free Google. I am
| ready to pay for something like ChatGPT.
|
| Google has an issue on their hands and is probably working
| overtime to lobby the threat of ChatGPT away.
| dilap wrote:
| ChatGPT can give you websites, too, if you ask:
|
| "What's a good social website for people of a technical bent"
|
| It recommended: Reddit, Hacker News, Stack Exchange, Quora,
| LinkedIn, ResearchGate, GitHub
|
| That's a pretty good list!
|
| Tried the same search on Google, and the first result was some
| spammy site "15 top social networks," #1 being facebook. Not
| very useful.
|
| I definitely think chatbots will replace many uses of search
| engines. It's already way more useful for lots of stuff for me.
| williamtrask wrote:
| It's not that google can't do this. It's that the incentives
| prevent it. Chatbots may be worse because there's a plausible
| way to only give you one answer and to really make it feel
| real.
| gukov wrote:
| Another way to look at ChatGPT is it being a smart RSS
| reader. It's the way it discards all the WordPress layout
| junk giving you just the meat in a text format.
|
| The biggest advantage Google currently has is their massive
| indexing ability. ChatGPT is oblivious to something that just
| happened (ie was posted) an hour ago, a day ago, heck, a
| month ago.
| forrest2 wrote:
| There is flywheel issue with generative search: content
| producers, information curators or outlets, etc need to get
| paid.
|
| People are okay-ish with Google in part because it drives
| traffic and traffic can be profitable. Fancy features that
| snatch website content and show them in Google's result pages
| are already not appreciated by indexed websites.
|
| If generative search becomes the dominant interface, we will
| eventually see severe public info stagnation until alternative
| business models can grow around it or avoid it altogether. I
| suspect we'll see more platforms like Spotify for X and a
| continued shift toward subscription platforms and youtube.
|
| Of course, what's to stop the bots from watching all of
| Netflix, listening to every podcast, etc? It will be an
| interesting decade for law / regulation / licensing.
| EGreg wrote:
| Why just public info stagnation? It will be dwarfed by
| believable content generated by swarms of internet bots.
|
| Once a stable diffusion like open source GPT-3 appears, it
| will be used to create fake news all the time. Like imagine
| 70 different outlets all with relatively large clout on
| social networks suddenly announce that Elon Musk is running
| for president. Nevermind that he wasn't born in the USA...
| somehow mysteriously none of them address it:
|
| Yes it is here and it's already being spread but that is just
| a tiny sliver of what will happen in the next 5 years:
| https://youtu.be/LSlv4AsChwg
|
| Such stuff can be used to move markets, pump and dump assets
| and even start new wars!
| WJW wrote:
| What kills it for me (so far, perhaps they can fix it in the
| future) is that there is no way to know if you've actually
| asked ChatGPT correctly and it has given you a perfect document
| with the answer you seek, or if your question was slightly off
| and it has given a wrong answer, or even if your question was
| correct but it still confidently gives the wrong answer. It
| famously asserted numbers like 42 were prime early on, though
| that seems to have been fixed (although that may have been just
| through hardcoding).
| RBerenguel wrote:
| Or you have asked correctly (or not, that's hard to tell from
| the onset) and has given you a non-factual answer. For
| example, I asked ChatGPT for what would be the best
| introductory book for a subject (added some more conditions
| to make it pretty clear-cut). It recommended me a book that
| sounded reasonable in title, with existing authors in the
| field... but the book didn't exist, at all.
| boredemployee wrote:
| Yes. It can even give name of research papers that never
| existed
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I wish ChatGPT would give you the score(s) of the results it
| returns, so you could understand how correct it "thinks" the
| response is. I wonder if those confidently wrong answers are
| also low scoring.
| geoffreypoirier wrote:
| I had a long requirements chat last night and did just
| that:
|
| There are many self-hosted solutions that could potentially
| meet the requirements you have listed for your RSS
| aggregator and reader project. Here is a list of some
| popular options, ranked in order of their approximate
| percentage of compatibility with the features you have
| specified:
|
| RSS Aggregator
|
| | Percentage Score | URL |
|
| | --- | --- |
|
| | 90% | https://tt-rss.org/ |
|
| | 85% | https://miniflux.app/ |
|
| | 80% | https://newsboat.org/ |
|
| | 75% | https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters |
|
| | 70% | https://github.com/noahcoad/feeds |
|
| | 65% | https://github.com/ssut/py-googlenews |
|
| | 60% | https://git.gnome.org/browse/feedreader/ |
|
| RSS Reader
|
| | Percentage Score | URL |
|
| | --- | --- |
|
| | 90% | https://tt-rss.org/ |
|
| | 85% | https://miniflux.app/ |
|
| | 80% | https://newsboat.org/ |
|
| | 75% | https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters |
|
| | 70% | https://github.com/noahcoad/feeds |
|
| | 65% | https://github.com/ssut/py-googlenews |
|
| | 60% | https://git.gnome.org/browse/feedreader/ |
|
| Please note that these percentages are approximate and are
| intended only as a rough guide. You may want to consider
| other factors such as the user interface, performance,
| security, and integration with other tools when choosing a
| solution for your project.
| permo-w wrote:
| you could probably ask it
| dpkirchner wrote:
| I'd considered that -- in some cases it says it's
| absolutely confident, like with basic arithmetic, and in
| others it says:
|
| > Without more information, I cannot estimate the
| accuracy or reliability of these claims. It is important
| to note that there may be conflicting or inaccurate
| information available online, and it is always a good
| idea to verify information from multiple sources before
| accepting it as fact.
|
| which seems pretty reasonable.
| krisoft wrote:
| > It famously asserted numbers like 42 were prime early on
|
| Oh it tried to convince me that four is not larger than one.
| :) It went like this:
|
| At first I asked ChatGPT to summarise J.C. Owen's
| contribution to geometric constraint solving. It gave me an
| answer which might be even correct. It sounded correct
| anyway. Then I have asked for a worked example of his method
| used on a toy geometric constraint system. It run into
| problems with that. Chiefly that the system is selected was
| under constrained.
|
| When I asked about that it insisted that it is well
| constrained. It even volunteared the info that for a system
| to be well constrained it needs as many variables as
| constraint equations. Then it told me that the system it
| generated has 4 variables and 1 equation.
|
| As a last question I asked if "Is four larger than 1?" and it
| resolved the seeming contradiction by telling me that in the
| context of geometric constraint solving four is not larger
| than one. One does learn a new thing every day. :)
| anothernewdude wrote:
| I'll take the links many times over a generated document.
|
| I can't buy from a storefront generated by ChatGPT. I can't
| cite a document written by ChatGPT, I can't trust news
| generated by ChatGPT, I can't comment on a forum generated by
| ChatGPT, I can't watch videos that ChatGPT describes, the
| recipes ChatGPT creates may not be possible to cook, and will
| probably still contain a fake life story before it.
| krisoft wrote:
| Yeah, it is so obviously a usefull user interface pattern. The
| real question is if it can be made accurate.
|
| I have asked chatGPT about my boss (a well published
| researcher) and it managed to summarise his work quite well,
| name the field he has worked in and even write about some of
| his previous projects. It also insisted on that he is already
| dead. Which made it very funny when I have shown it to him. :)
|
| But funny doesn't win one a trophy in information retrieval.
| Clearly it knows a lot about a lot of things, but the accuracy
| is hit and miss. Can this be fixed? Then this is the future. If
| it can't, because this is a fundamental property of these
| systems then it won't be a usefull replacement of search.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-25 23:00 UTC)