[HN Gopher] OpenAI Announces SearchGPT
___________________________________________________________________
OpenAI Announces SearchGPT
Author : notyouralias
Score : 268 points
Date : 2024-07-25 18:15 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (chatgpt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (chatgpt.com)
| chachra wrote:
| Perplexity has some competition!
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| Announcing a waitlist! :) Signed up either way, but really wish
| OpenAI announcements were for usable products.
| buremba wrote:
| ^ this. I had a similar feeling when I saw the landing page as
| I have been waiting for Sora to be available after it's
| "announced".
| ashu1461 wrote:
| Open ai always surprises. They are yet to completely release
| some of the features announced an year ago, but still announced
| a production ready model last week.
|
| Maybe this is the difference between anthropic and open ai..
| Anthropic has sharp focus on improving their core product and
| open ai is spread out.
| rvz wrote:
| > Open ai always surprises.
|
| Not this time. With this one, we were given notice about this
| as a rumor 3 months ago. [0]
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40313359
| viraptor wrote:
| It's a natural consequence of size. Openai with 1200+
| employees will have more projects running in parallel (and at
| different speeds) than Anthropic with ~500.
| herval wrote:
| It seems all their recent major have been waitlists: sora, the
| voice model, now this
| samiwami wrote:
| I wonder how good this will be. My employer gave us Perplexity
| Pro for free, and I removed Safari from my home screen and pinned
| Perplexity to force myself to use it... I found it really really
| slow and didn't really add to my search experience
| marcosdumay wrote:
| IMO, Perplexity does absolutely shine in a kind of search for
| what other engines don't compete at all. But it's way worse
| than normal engines for most of the things I search.
|
| Anyway, comparing it by speed isn't useful at all.
| llm_trw wrote:
| >Tractors are slower than cars, why would you use them?
| nsilvestri wrote:
| I have never felt like my searches in other engines have been
| helped by AI. I hope SearchGPT changes that. My expectations are
| low.
| blakesterz wrote:
| People with websites used to have a clear reason to allow bots to
| crawl and index our sites. Google and everyone sent us traffic.
| There was something of a trade off. Google has been slowly
| changing that trade by displaying more and more of our sites on
| google.com rather than sending people our way.
|
| As far as I can see there's no sending people away from
| SearchGPT, it just gives answers. I can't see any reason to allow
| AI crawlers on my sites, all they do is crawl my site and slow
| things down. I'm glad that most of them seem to respect
| robots.txt.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If it doesn't send you to the sites, what's the difference from
| just using ChatGPT?
|
| My impression from the demo is it has a perplexity-like result,
| with the answer and references to where each part comes from.
| wilg wrote:
| Search is a familiar interface and chat is a bit janky
| sometimes.
| jpcookie wrote:
| I clearly would not. "Slow down your site" because information
| is super useful when you can't search it properly.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Sites might exist for reasons other than to "be useful". At a
| bare minimum, they may be trying to sell eyeballs to
| advertisers, but they also might be trying to deliver an
| experience, induce some deeper engagement, make a sale, build
| a community, whatever.
|
| All of that disappears when a bot devours whatever it
| assesses to be your "content" and then serves it up as a QA
| response, stripped of any of the surrounding context.
| jpcookie wrote:
| Because reading nonsense inside an infinite debatable
| context is fun. I know what you're talking about and
| frankly I'm not impressed.
|
| You know why people like these chat systems? Because it
| straight up saves time. When a system is made it to
| indexable, "context dependent", and "creating a certain
| experience" it just begs to be summarized and made to be
| something you can use. That interpretable work is....
| Pointlessly difficult.
|
| A good example: discord. A vast number of communities are
| designed to be "experiences" where you have to pour hours
| of your time to adapt to their little fiefdoms if you
| wanted to obtain any useful information in the form of
| important information on a topic. Try doing this in any
| serious fashion and you will quickly be wasting more of
| your time than you want.
|
| Yeah so maybe chatgpt gives you the occasional incorrect
| fact. I haven't had that happen in any way, shape, or form.
| Furthermore: just be critical of your information. Not
| hard, and they are already working on fixing that.
|
| Especially for people that are bonafide adults time is
| worth more than "the pride of human work".
| Xelynega wrote:
| I'm confused how this can be your opinion while you're
| also spending time on this website responding to people.
|
| Why are you not just asking chatgpt "what's the latest
| tech news"?
|
| Could it be that there's something else you get from this
| site other than just it's content being easily searchable
| in someone elses database?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I imagine that something else is _conversation_.
|
| Note however that HN is not gatekeeping any useful
| information that may be produced during conversations
| here; in fact, it's all indexed and searchable.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Sure, and if a chatbot can helpfully summarize factual
| content being gatekept in a Discord chat, then that's
| fantastic, but I don't think that's quite what I'm
| getting at. The internet has room for more than just an
| infinite queue of fact-seekers interacting with a bank of
| fact-repositories. Some writing (eg, poetry) is clearly
| art and the people who have created it are entitled to
| have a bit of say over how that art is consumed and under
| what regimes it is summarized/remixed. Or at least us as
| those consumers should have the discernment required to
| be able to say "this isn't authentic, let me seek out the
| original instead."
|
| I'm not normally a purist on these things, but I'm
| recalling musical artists who bemoaned the destruction of
| the album format in favour of $0.99/track sales in the
| early days of the iTunes store. Concept albums in the
| vein of Sgt Peppers still exist of course, but almost
| every modern mainstream song is now prepared first and
| foremost to be listened to in isolation. I didn't care
| for those arguments at the time they were being made, but
| years later, I can appreciate how something was lost
| there and that it might have been appropriate to let
| artists specify that album X was to be sold _only_ as an
| album.
| blowski wrote:
| If you want ChatGPT to say nice things about you (or bad things
| about your competitors), then you'll need to give it your
| version of information - at least that will be the line peddled
| to us.
|
| I've already received emails from SEO snake oil sellers now
| advertising themselves as being able to influence ChatGPT
| output.
| netghost wrote:
| Maybe this is an excellent time for prompt injection :)
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Pedalled or peddled? :)
| blowski wrote:
| Fixed
| jsheard wrote:
| > I'm glad that most of them seem to respect robots.txt.
|
| https://github.com/ai-robots-txt/ai.robots.txt/blob/main/tab...
|
| Some of them identify themselves by user agent but don't
| respect robots.txt, so you have to set up your server to 403
| their requests to keep them out. If they start obfuscating
| their user agents then there won't be an easy solution besides
| deferring to a platform like CloudFlare which offers to play
| that cat and mouse game on your behalf though.
| wilg wrote:
| If I were making a search engine or AI crawler, I would
| simply pose as Googlebot
| jsheard wrote:
| Google actually provides means of validating whether a
| request really came from them, so masquerading as Googlebot
| would probably backfire on you. I would expect the big CDNs
| to flag your IP address as malicious if you fail that
| check.
|
| https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-
| indexing/...
| wilg wrote:
| You could maybe still only follow robots.txt rules for
| Googlebot.
| lolinder wrote:
| The entry here for Perplexity is the one that got a lot of
| attention but it's also unfair: PerplexityBot is their
| crawler, which uses that user agent and as far as anyone can
| tell it respects robots.txt.
|
| They _also_ have a feature that will, if a user pastes a URL
| into their chat, go fetch the data and do something with it
| in response to the user 's query. This is the feature that
| made a big kerfuffle on HN a while back when someone noticed
| it [0].
|
| That second feature is _not_ a web crawler in any meaningful
| sense of the word "crawler". It looks up exactly one URL
| that the user asked for and does something with it. It's
| Perplexity acting as a User Agent in the original sense of
| the word: a user's agent for accessing and manipulating data
| on the open web.
|
| If an AI agent manipulating a web page that I ask it to
| manipulate in the way I ask it to manipulate it is considered
| abusive then so are ad blockers, reader mode, screen readers,
| dark reader, and anything else that gives me access to open
| web content in a form that the author didn't originally
| intend.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40690898
| ffsm8 wrote:
| No, thats illogical.
|
| The action is indeed prompted by a human, but so is any
| crawl in some way. At some point they either configured an
| interval or other trigger to send the script to the Web
| host to fetch anything it can find.
|
| It's inherently different to extensions such as adblockers
| that just remove elements according to configuration.
|
| After all, the users device will never even see the final
| DOM now. instead it's getting fetched, parsed and processed
| on a third device, which is objectively a robot. You'd be
| able to make that argument only if it was implemented via
| an extension (users device fetched the page and posts the
| final document to the LLM for processing).
|
| And that's ignoring the fact that adblockers are seen as
| illegitimate by a lot of websites too, and they often try
| to block access to people using these extensions too.
| lolinder wrote:
| I wrote a reply but you edited out the chunk of text that
| I quoted, so here's a new reply.
|
| > After all, the users device will never even see the
| final DOM now. instead it's getting fetched, parsed and
| processed on a third device, which is objectively a
| robot.
|
| Sure, but why does it matter if the machine that I ask to
| fetch, parse, and process the DOM lives on my computer or
| on someone else's? I, the human being, will never see the
| DOM either way.
|
| This distinction between my computer and a third-party
| computer quickly falls apart when you push at it.
|
| If I issue a curl request from a server that I'm renting,
| is that a robot request? What about if I'm using Firefox
| on a remote desktop? What about if I self-host a client
| like Perplexity on a local server?
|
| We live in an era where many developers run their IDE
| backend in the cloud. The line between "my device" and
| "cloud device" has been nearly entirely blurred, so
| making that the line between "robot" and "not robot" is
| entirely irrational in 2024.
|
| The only definition of "robot" or "crawler" that makes
| any kind of sense is the one provided by robotstxt.org
| [0], and it's one that unequivocally would incorporate
| Perplexity on the "not robot" side:
|
| > A robot is a program that automatically traverses the
| Web's hypertext structure by retrieving a document, and
| recursively retrieving all documents that are referenced.
| ... Normal Web browsers are not robots, because they are
| operated by a human, and don't automatically retrieve
| referenced documents (other than inline images).
|
| Or the MDN definition [1]:
|
| > A web crawler is a program, often called a bot or
| robot, which systematically browses the Web to collect
| data from webpages. Typically search engines (e.g.
| Google, Bing, etc.) use crawlers to build indexes.
|
| Perplexity issues one web request per human interaction
| and does not fetch referenced pages. It cannot be
| considered a "crawler" by either of these definitions,
| and the definition you've come up with just doesn't work
| in the era of cloud software.
|
| [0] https://www.robotstxt.org/faq/what.html
|
| [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Glossary/Crawler
| namdnay wrote:
| So you get the information out to people without even having to
| serve traffic? Sounds like a win? At the end of the day, if
| they want to book/buy anything they'll have to go to your site
| markild wrote:
| I guess collaborative sites like forums are likely to suffer
| greatly from this shift.
| criddell wrote:
| Do you think HN will suffer greatly from AI bots digesting
| the site?
| wseqyrku wrote:
| If that's the case, I think it's fair to say that we can skip
| websites and just host a service that chatgpt can talk to. If
| you're a restaurant, user can actually order right from the
| chat. or voice.
| nicce wrote:
| > If you're a restaurant, user can actually order right from
| the chat. or voice.
|
| So, instead of giving 30% fee for DoorDash or Wolt about
| visibility, we start giving that fee for "some-AI-search-
| tool", and they don't allow selling food cheaper than you get
| by using the AI search process ordering. I don't like this
| era.
| wseqyrku wrote:
| That's assuming you don't have any customers. Those will
| just directly name your restaurant. I guess the only way to
| attract new customers would be word-of-mouth, or some other
| form of advertising.
| nicce wrote:
| I am assuming that most customers comes from deliveries
| in these days. People optimize time.
|
| Only some big, well-known restaurants are an exception
| because people already known them and know to look for
| them. They are big enough to have online shop for food
| delivery and some form of delivery system.
|
| For other places, it is not like that. They need to be
| visible on platforms that people use. If they are not
| there, people don't order take-away food because they
| mainly use applications which provide decent-enough
| catalog about available restaurants with delivery option
| and easy payment process.
|
| Typical platform monopoly problem exists because people
| tend to be lazy and it is hard to get visibility on
| traditional search engines, when they are flooded by ads
| for the normal users, and then if you filter them out,
| SSO spam, which might not be related to restaurants, and
| then finally, competition against other restaurants.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Slowly? Google gave up quality searches years ago
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Google has been slowly changing that trade by displaying more
| and more of our sites on google.com rather than sending people
| our way.
|
| To an extent, I actually like the trend as Joe Average User.
|
| Most websites are just plain filthy and even dangerous today. I
| know I am not opening any link to a website I don't already
| know and trust unless it's in a Private window (fuck their
| cookies) with JavaShit more than likely blocked. If it's really
| shady I'll fire up an entire disposable VM for it first.
|
| Google, Bing, et al. just putting the content right then and
| there saves me time and hassle from dealing with the ancillary
| garbage myself.
|
| It's honestly a tragedy of the commons. Big Tech wants more
| traffic and to keep it, websites want more traffic and just
| throw whatever literal shit they can muster (aka SEO).
| wilg wrote:
| Fundamentally the problem here is that in many (maybe about
| half of) search cases people are not ultimately interested in
| visiting a website, they are interested in a piece of
| information on the website. The website is essentially a
| paywall for that information. The website is a middleman, and
| middlemen can be easily disrupted by a better one.
|
| So what we really need here is a new approach to funding the
| availability of information. Unfortunately, ads are fairly
| lucrative because advertisers are willing to pay a lot more
| than users are. You could I guess do something where SearchGPT
| pays a couple of cents out of a monthly fee to each information
| source it used. Much harder with LLMs, since the source of
| information is potentially very diffuse and difficult to track.
| And even if you tracked it each publisher would get such a tiny
| fraction of what they are making now.
|
| But the difficult part for web publishers is that AI powered
| information retrieval is a significantly better user
| experience, which means it's very likely to win no matter what.
| mrtksn wrote:
| >People with websites used to have a clear reason to allow bots
| to crawl and index our sites
|
| For a long time now, that reason was to show ads and the
| content quality was very, very low. It destroyed journalism, it
| destroyed everything pretty much. Some of the blame is on
| Google but a lot of the blame is on the people with websites
| IMHO.
|
| People with websites can go back to the good old days when they
| made websites to show off their talents, persuade people into
| activism, spread ideas and seek interaction with likeminded
| humans.
|
| LLMs have the problem of hallucinations but when that's solved
| I wouldn't be looking back. Hopefully, Google itself would be
| disrupted.
|
| Maybe we can finally have a business model for high quality
| data, like journalists selling their work on current events
| without the need to present it in the most bombastic way
| possible?
|
| I think the world currently is in strong need of a way to
| process large amounts of data streaming in and make sense of
| it. AI can be very useful of that. I would love to have access
| to an LLM that can keep up with the current events so I don't
| have to endure all the nazi stuff on Twitter.
|
| I don't want censorship it's just that I would be perfectly
| happy to know that there are bunch of people thinking that
| Biden was replaced and that there are some other people
| thinking that Michelle Obama is actually a man without have to
| read it like 100 times a day when I'm trying to look at the
| opinions of the people on something. It's cool to know that
| there are such people(or bots?) out there but I don't want to
| read their stuff, I want to the computer to on top of all that
| and give me a brief on, then I can drill down if I want to know
| more or see the exact content.
| evilfred wrote:
| LLM hallucinations can't be solved as it is the whole LLM
| mechanisms. all LLM results are hallucinations, it just
| happens some results are more true/useful than others.
| tptacek wrote:
| So, Google already does this, right? And most of the feedback
| I've seen is: "how the hell do we turn this off".
| MattGaiser wrote:
| The problem with the Google one is accuracy. It told people to
| eat rocks. OpenAI just needs to beat that.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| Obvious errors make for good comedy and create obvious
| moments for reflection on what is actually being done. Subtle
| errors lead to fractured realities.
| dheera wrote:
| Google makes shittons of the subtle variety now as well.
| minimaxir wrote:
| It appears from the demo example, OpenAI is not winning in
| the accuracy department either:
| https://x.com/kifleswing/status/1816542216678179083
|
| > In ChatGPT's recent search engine announcement, they ask
| for "music festivals in Boone North Carolina in august"
|
| > There are five results in the example image in the ChatGPT
| blog post :
|
| > 1: Festival in Boone ... that ends July 27 ... ChatGPT's
| dates are when the box office is closed [X] 2: A festival in
| Swannanoa, two hours away from Boone, closer to Asheville [X]
| 3. Free Friday night summer concerts at a community center
| (not a festival but close enough) [O] 4. The website to a
| local venue [X] 5. A festival that takes place in June,
| although ChatGPT's summary notes this. [Shrug]
| patchorang wrote:
| Not saying the SearchGPT will or will not be accurate, but
| this demo was certainly made in After Effects. Who knows
| where the copy came from.
| minimaxir wrote:
| Even though placeholder copy is common in promos, a
| _search engine demo_ is the one case where you need
| completely accurate copy.
| paxys wrote:
| They are both training on the same garbage. OpenAI's accuracy
| isn't any better.
| dheera wrote:
| It would be cool if it could collect and aggregate information.
|
| "What is the mean and standard deviation of the AQI along the
| current fastest driving route from Palo Alto to Lassen National
| Park, averaged over the driving time"
|
| "What is the easternmost supermarket before Yosemite that is at
| least 2000sqft in size"
|
| etc
| killerstorm wrote:
| Microsoft does it. In fact they came up with Bing integration
| before GPT-4 release, although UI is a bit different.
|
| Kinda hilarious that nobody remembers...
| mrinterweb wrote:
| OpenAI isn't going to beat Google at the search game any time
| soon, and yeah Google's AI results have mixed popularity now.
| Doesn't seem like the best use of OpenAI's focus to me.
| paxys wrote:
| Bing has been doing this for a while, _using_ GPT-4. I don 't
| see how OpenAI can substantially improve on that experience.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Have you used perplexity? It is very useful, I rarely google
| stuff any more.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| I think Open Ai can do this better than google for the simple
| reason that nobody pays for google search, ads do. And with ads
| the incentive make the search bad. Google has become an
| advertising monster. If only google could get people to pay for
| proper search but that is not very likely and problematic since
| it would cannibalize their ads based shitty search business.
|
| Open AI or other AI companies could capitalize on that because
| they already have hooked their users up with their LLMs, search
| could be another feature and has the potential to grow from
| there.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Finally, the inevitable product we all knew was coming: going
| after Google's core biz
|
| I like the follow up questions feature but how is it different
| than chat gpt - just providing links as well?
| ashu1461 wrote:
| Getting more richer context of the current web events and doing
| that in a faster way. The current website scrapping feature is
| too slow.
| CephalopodMD wrote:
| That feature is also part of Google search's AI
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _going after Google's core biz_
|
| Meta is out to commodotize Google's core product ( _Search_ ).
| Meta's foray into Open Source AI is likely to hurt more as
| Google's distribution advantages (via Chrome and Android) is
| close to insurmountable for _one_ rival search engine to make
| any meaningful dent by going toe-to-toe.
| mentos wrote:
| Being a separate product I wonder if they plan to introduce
| advertising in ways that they couldn't with ChatGPT.
| floam wrote:
| According to the article: this separate product is ephemeral,
| it's a prototype and eventually the idea is what it does will
| become part of ChatGPT.
| kva wrote:
| This just represents such a stark lack in originality and lends
| even more credo to "OpenAI wants to copy its customers"
| 42lux wrote:
| They are not research focused anymore they are a product
| company now.
| gbarletta wrote:
| Maybe to the point they will rebrand themselves soon
| MattDaEskimo wrote:
| I really dislike this as OpenAI has spent the past months signing
| sweetheart deals with any publisher willing to sell their content
| for training data.
|
| It ties everything to their platform and returns a regurgitation
| of prioritized content without indicating any sort of
| sponsorship.
|
| SEO will be replaced by cold hard cash, favors, and backroom
| deals
| jjulius wrote:
| >SEO will be replaced by cold hard cash, favors, and backroom
| deals
|
| Maybe it's my pessimistic nature, but it's garbage either way
| to me - backroom deals in your scenario, or the SEO-gameified
| garbage we currently have.
| pandeiro wrote:
| Can't believe unfettered greed and self-interest would ruin
| something like this.
| tivert wrote:
| At least with "SEO-gameified garbage" the little guy has a
| chance to compete by learning the SEO game.
| benreesman wrote:
| Cold hard cash, favors, and backroom deals have been the
| modus operandi of this leadership team for over a decade now,
| it's the only song they know.
| Topfi wrote:
| > SEO will be replaced by cold hard cash, favors, and backroom
| deals
|
| Maybe this reflects my biases, but isn't that was SEO has been
| from the get go? Like, from the moment someone had the idea
| that they could influence search engine results in their favor
| and charge money for those services, SEO has been purely
| negative for internet users simply trying to find the most
| fitting results for their query.
| arp242 wrote:
| Well, there's SEO and then there's _SEO_. Some of it is just
| common-sense stuff to aid search engines a bit, and that
| benefits everyone. And then there 's _SEO_ which is all the
| bullshittery you 're referring to.
|
| For well over a decade the best SEO trick is to write helpful
| useful content.
|
| Your small independent blog can become a top Google hit
| without too much effort. This is kind of neat.
| benreesman wrote:
| If no one else does it soon I'll probably do it myself: we're
| long overdue for the ad-block of LLM output. I want a browser
| plugin that nukes it at the DOM, and I don't care how many
| false positives it has.
| viraptor wrote:
| You can't detect LLM output with any reasonable rate. You'd
| have both false positives and false negatives all over the
| place. If you solve that part on its own, that will be a SOTA
| method.
| benreesman wrote:
| This is a dangerous falsehood. OpenAI's since-cancelled
| polygraph had a 9% rate of false positives, and a 26% rate
| of true positive. If I can lose a quarter of toxic bytes
| and need to enable JavaScript on one site in ten? Count me
| in!
|
| I want _more_ false positives.
|
| https://openai.com/index/new-ai-classifier-for-indicating-
| ai...
| viraptor wrote:
| Then don't use any website - 100% false positives. But
| seriously, it's a 9% rate for specific models at the
| time. It's a cat and mouse game and any fine tuning or a
| new release will throw it off. Also they don't say which
| 9% was misclassified, but I suspect it's the most
| important ones - the well written articles. If I see a
| dumb tweet with a typo it's unlikely to come from LLM
| (and if it does, who cares), but a well written long form
| article may have been slightly edited with LLM and get
| caught. The 9% is not evenly distributed.
| benreesman wrote:
| It was a cat and mouse game before, spam always is. The
| inevitable reality that spam is a slog of a war isn't a
| good argument for giving up.
|
| I don't know the current meta on LLM vs LLM detector, but
| if I had to pick one job or the other, I'd rather train a
| binary classifier to detect a giant randomized nucleus
| sampling decoder thing than fool a binary classifier with
| said Markov process thing.
|
| Please don't advocate for giving up on spam, that affects
| us all.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If no one else does it soon I'll probably do it myself:
| we're long overdue for the ad-block of LLM output. I want a
| browser plugin that nukes it at the DOM, and I don't care how
| many false positives it has.
|
| Well, if you don't care how many false positives it has, just
| block everything. But there's no even remotely reliable way
| to detect LLM output if it isn't deliberately watermarked to
| facilitate that, so you aren't going to get anything that is
| actually good at that.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| as long as sama is running things we'll be seeing this. he's
| trying to grow as large as possible, for more leverage.
| supertofu wrote:
| > SEO will be replaced by cold hard cash, favors, and backroom
| deals
|
| The fact that SEO has to exist in the first place is evidence
| of search engine mafia.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| I honestly think that will be an improvement. SEO is
| enshittification, it degrades the quality of the product. I
| would rather pay a couple bucks for something good and vetted.
| rvz wrote:
| Perhaps no-one could answer my question in [0] because many
| (including me) knew OpenAI would release their own search engine;
| eventually in [0].
|
| _" Who can tell me how and why is Perplexity.ai is worth $1BN?
| How much revenue are they making vs the amount of money they are
| burning? What is the justification of this valuation?"_ [0]
|
| At this point with this unsurprising announcement, Perplexity is
| worth <$50M.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40313461
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Company valuations never have an explanation. At all. It's all
| whatever people at the moment guessed, usually with so little
| information that you'd be infuriated.
|
| For non-traded companies, it's even worse, because it's less
| people, at fewer moments, and they don't even need to be
| honest. As a first approximation, non-traded companies do not
| have a valuation, any number you get is bullshit and you can
| get something with the same accuracy by just asking ChatGPT.
| mrkramer wrote:
| It is worth $1BN because people who invested in it, think it is
| worth that much.
| skydhash wrote:
| Search engines for me is keyword based. I want to type "pizza
| <town> near <street>" or "<function> <library> <language>" and
| get sensible result. Anytime a search engines tries to interpret
| my query with something far semantically and ignoring my own
| keywords, it's a worse experience.
| asddubs wrote:
| you end up searching for a pub called graphite and get 10000
| results about graphite bars because it's a more common term and
| bar = pub, right? contrived example but that seems to happen to
| me every other month at least
| kypro wrote:
| I have no data to back this up, but I strongly suspect 90% of
| search traffic consists of dumb searches for things like,
| "facebook", "weather tomorrow", "gmail".
|
| While people do search for things that could benefit from some
| comprehension, I don't think that's a common feature.
|
| For example, my most recent searches and I'm probably a bit of
| an outlier given my usage:
|
| "given when then" "[some project] github" "[some person]
| wikipedia" "[some person] wikipedia" "act of supremacy
| wikipedia" "NVDA stock" "django docs onetoonefield"
|
| Perhaps one of those Wikipedia searches could have been done
| better as an AI search since I wanted to know something
| specific, but other two were just from wanting to read
| generally about a topic.
|
| The benefits I get from ChatGPT and similar tools are more
| conversational than search like. Eg, I might be trying to solve
| a coding problem and want some suggestions about how I might go
| about it. I might act for libraries, example code, and pros and
| cons of different approaches. I basically use it as a
| replacement for another senior engineer which I can bounce
| ideas off of, it's not for search / knowledge type stuff and I
| can't see why I'd ask an AI for that. If I want to know
| something I can just type a few keywords into google and find a
| reputable site that for that info.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Depends. I'm sure that Google trained us to rephrase at least
| some of our questions as keywords and to not ask some complex
| questions at all- or at least to expect them to fail. Plus, in
| general we expect Google to mostly find the information that is
| already there, while there is a world of information that has
| not been made explicit by anyone. For example, "how many
| pizzerias are in this town" and "which one has the highest
| ratings by Italian customers" are two questions that I would
| never dream to ask Google. Yet they're possible and not too
| absurd to ask to an omniscient intelligence.
| binary132 wrote:
| Shameless Google search clone
| jigneshdarji91 wrote:
| I've been using Perplexity for the past 3 months on a regular
| basis and it has replaced DDG for most use cases. It's really
| nice to have answers directly.
|
| Product comparison/updates/features:
|
| > What's the difference in speedo latex cap vs elastomeric?
|
| > What's new in iOS 18 Beta 4?
|
| Documentation (esp for non-mainstream tools):
|
| > How do i find the sioyek db files? How do I move it to my local
| iCloud folder instead?
|
| I'd assume SearchGPT's results might be better given the
| partnerships with publishers and creators vs Perplexity searching
| the internet. More importantly, Perplexity already did the work
| of finding Product-Market Fit for OpenAI.
| llm_trw wrote:
| My beef with perplexity is that there is no way to increase the
| number of uses of large models.
|
| People keep telling me that I can use the smaller models, but I
| really can't. I'm using this for work and those things are toys
| which just game bench marks.
|
| I'd love to give them an api key from openai or anthropic and
| get uses to my hearts content like phind does.
| Havoc wrote:
| Huh? I haven't seen any limits yet regardless of model choice
| llm_trw wrote:
| You hit them after dozens of uses on the big models and
| hundreds on the small ones.
| freefaler wrote:
| Perplexity is great, but they might have their rug pulled
| underneath them.
|
| They use google and other search providers to run the query
| over the results and may be they still can find a good
| provider. However it's either Google or Bing and they both have
| their own competing products.
|
| However, openAI might not execute this better and then
| Perplexity might have a chance... (I hope so).
| drexlspivey wrote:
| > They use google and other search providers to run the query
| over the results and may be they still can find a good
| provider.
|
| No they don't? AFAIK they have their own crawler and semantic
| search index.
| jigneshdarji91 wrote:
| Yes [1]
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40690898
| machiaweliczny wrote:
| The elephant in the room is monetization for people writing
| this content that perplexity (and then other search engines)
| will show.
| jigneshdarji91 wrote:
| And I believe for this reason necessarily SearchGPT might
| come out on top, at least for higher quality content from
| partnerships.
| charlierguo wrote:
| Have we figured out a way to monetize AI-powered search yet?
| Presumably a product like this (or Perplexity) will ultimately be
| free, in which case they'll be forced to offer ads (bringing us
| back to Google's status quo) or perhaps worse, we'll have
| "product placement" in our AI-written results.
| downrightmike wrote:
| No, and that is a big problem, search doesn't make money
| either. People will not actually pay the cost for AI once they
| have to.
| criddell wrote:
| They might pay for it indirectly. For example, Apple just
| signed a deal with OpenAI and I could imagine a future where
| users of Apple devices get free access to some AI because
| Apple and that company made a deal.
| PodgieTar wrote:
| Well, maybe, but I think the huge thing missing from this
| assumption is that Apple are not paying OpenAI anything,
| and are developing their own in-house and on-device models.
|
| And a lot of what those on-model devices can do are what
| the average person will want.
|
| And there's going to take a lot to move people meaningfully
| away from google.
| freediver wrote:
| > No, and that is a big problem, search doesn't make money
| either.
|
| Kahm, Kagi (and Google) would both disagree. You can even
| pick your favorite business model!
| freediver wrote:
| This is already happening, most have either announced or are
| already monetizing their output with ads.
|
| A few (inlcuding Kagi's LLM assisted search) will be monetized
| through user/customer subscriptions exclusively.
|
| As with search, these two business models will lead to
| different outcomes for the users.
| moralestapia wrote:
| GG Google and I couldn't be more pleased.
|
| It may not be this specific iteration that kills it, but a search
| product with AI (and without trash) is what will dethrone it.
|
| I'm already using ChatGPT for ~30% of the queries I used to use
| Google for. I prefer hallucinations to ads, to be honest.
|
| They were right to call Code Red when GPT came out, but their
| response to it has been extremely poor, _even when they had all
| their cards in their hands_. The quality of their products has
| been increasingly worse with time, everyone (but their own VPs)
| has been telling them that, it 's hardly a secret.
|
| They literally just have to go through the first two or three
| comments on this site (or Reddit or w/e) and fix the extremely
| obvious pain points people have with their products:
| * Bring back verbatim search, make search *actually* work.
| * If I search for "italian restaurants", I want a list of italian
| restaurants not a blog post with someone's opinion on why italian
| restaurants should hire more immigrants because of blah blah blah
| ... I want to *eat* something! * The whole "vikings
| were black" episode ... wtf.
|
| They kind of deserve it at this point.
| avgDev wrote:
| ChatGPT is like a drunk expert. It says the correct words but
| might completely wrong. I've had some funny instances of it
| hallucinating.
| moralestapia wrote:
| "SEO-optimized" sites are equally crappy, if not worse.
|
| You still have to discard a lot of information from Google,
| you probably just got used to it. Even though I still use it
| for ~70% of my queries, what I'm actually looking for is one
| or two pages down the list of results, the first ones being
| just mediocre articles around the topic of interest.
|
| What's the first thing you do when you get Google results?
| You _scroll down_ , it has become muscle memory at this
| point.
| chubot wrote:
| OK but this is the same pattern as image uploading services -
| https://drewdevault.com/2014/10/10/The-profitability-of-onli...
|
| 1. google was a good search engine when it was less profitable
|
| 2. now that it is more profitable, it is bad
|
| Importantly, it was possible for Google to be good AND
| profitable at the same time! Roughly from 2003-2013 perhaps.
|
| 1. OpenAI is nowhere near profitable ... it seems to be heavily
| dependent on Microsoft, and in some sense on Microsoft's desire
| to compete with Google in certain areas
|
| 2. If it ever becomes profitable, does anyone want to argue it
| won't get significantly worse? It will probably have a bunch of
| bad side effects, like Google's decline did on the web itself
|
| I guess this is "normal", but it also seems pretty inefficient
| to me ... Part of the problem is that "free" is a special price
| that users like
|
| IMO it would have be nice if Google search was sustainable at a
| high quality -- I think it easily could have been
| llm_trw wrote:
| LLMs aren't tech that can be free, the good ones are
| expensive enough that we have to move away from the
| malvertising economy that was supported by keyword searches.
|
| Here's hoping capitalism starts working again with
| subscriptions so users are the consumers and not the product.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| I would say at least 1/3 of my Google usage is for local lookup
| queries like your example of "Italian restaurants". Which as I
| would expect returned a list sourced from Google Maps in my
| area, then "Top $x Italian Restaurants in $mycity" posts from
| sites like TripAdvisor. So I'm not sure what you're referring
| to with that example, that seems more of an issue for something
| like recipes.
|
| ChatGPT can be useful for certain hard to Google informational
| questions but doesn't help me at all for the boring "IKEA
| hours" type searches I do every day.
| Topfi wrote:
| OpenAI, up to this point, has shown a willingness to outcompete
| some of the very companies that rely on their API to function,
| most famously with the release of GPTs, which had a quite severe
| impact on many "AI startups" [0]. In that way, they remind me of
| Apple with Sherlock way back in the early 2000s.
|
| Despite this, I was doubtful that they'd go so far as to release
| a full-on search product due to their relationship with MSFT and
| reliance on Azure credits. I am happy to admit that I have long
| stopped any attempt to properly understand how OpenAI's corporate
| governance and company structure work, so I have a hard time
| following where this falls under and who would decide on this
| release, as well as how they interact with the part of OpenAI
| cooperating with MSFT and the Bing team, but I still have a hard
| time seeing how releasing a clear Bing competitor wouldn't cause
| some trouble for their entire suite of products and maybe even
| hinder future expansion by limiting the resources they can rely
| upon.
|
| I am also interested in how this will impact search in
| https://chatgpt.com/, which, like everything in that product, has
| been inconsistent to a maddening extent. Started out barely
| usable, failing consistently, then got reliable whilst retaining
| the ability to search through multiple sites and handle more than
| one request in a row, then lost most of those capabilities and
| now barely works anymore, only looking at an incredibly limited,
| often barely fitting selection of results, whilst also needing to
| be manually invoked by asking for a search, rather than before
| when that was done automatically whenever it seemed sensible.
|
| Like so many changes, e.g. the subjective reduction in GPT-4's
| abilities over time whilst retaining the model's name (not to
| mention the regressions they publicized in the name of
| efficiency, like the "turbo" variants), this is certainly done to
| reduce costs to the point of finally becoming financially viable
| at the $20,- price they charge for ChatGPT+. I might be in the
| minority, but I will continue to scream from the rooftops that I
| am more than willing to pay far more for a consistent,
| guaranteed, high-end LLM with web access (which sadly excludes
| Anthropic's efforts).
|
| [0] I still dislike using that term for companies solely relying
| on third-party API's, a frontend and database solution,
| especially since I also detest calling LLM's "AI", but it's what
| this crop of companies have been termed and how they collected
| bucket loads of VC.
| bendecoste wrote:
| Excited to try it once it is actually open for use. Anyone else
| find the the product gifs hard to follow with all of the motion
| and zoom?
| sonium wrote:
| The fact that OpenAI is releasing a fancy UI instead of an
| improved model says something. I'm afraid GPT-5 won't be there
| any time soon.
| aabhay wrote:
| C'mon. OpenAI is a large company now with 1000+ employees.
| You're really going to air this hot take?
|
| - if they release a model "they're just releasing models
| without use cases" - if they release safety guardrails "they
| are just doing this to avoid launching models" - if the release
| has a waitlist "they're losing their velocity" - if they launch
| without a waitlist "they weren't considering the safety
| implications" - if they hired a top researcher "they're
| conspiring to out spend open source" - if they fire a top
| researcher "there's too much politics taking over"
| blagie wrote:
| You realize GPT-4o was released in May? And the new Facebook
| models within the past week?
|
| New models are coming fast too.
| asadotzler wrote:
| New models, not refinements on old models. You know what the
| OP was saying. Why the pedantry?
| t0md4n wrote:
| Aren't 'new models' always technically just refinements of
| old models? isn't that the point?
| HaZeust wrote:
| Probably because the benchmarks with higher models are, at this
| time, negligible. Increasing transformers and iterating
| attention might be a dead-stop for more capable models beyond
| 2T parameters. But, I'm not sure.
| energy123 wrote:
| > I'm afraid GPT-5 won't be there any time soon.
|
| Based on nothing but idle speculation.
| summerlight wrote:
| I understand OpenAI had to make it cheap enough before the
| launch, but it feels like they're too late for this. They
| should've done this in 2023 H1 when Google was completely
| vulnerable. Now it seems to be prepared to quickly replicate the
| product?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Where is GPT-5? Imo these "announcements" from OpenAI are a
| further sign that model capability has plateaued with GPT-4.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It's not supposed to be out until 2025.
| rfoo wrote:
| Nice, they found a way to bring ads back!
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| Bring on the ads!
| iamleppert wrote:
| ChatGPT has already largely replaced Google Search in many of the
| cases I have. I no longer rely on Google to do basic research, it
| feels so out of date and clunky compared to just getting an
| answer to your question. No looking through multiple pages and
| clicking through to web sites with ads and paywalls and trying to
| piece together an opinion from multiple sources.
|
| ChatGPT just works, and it works quickly, and its usually right,
| and is a better user experience than Google Search in every way.
| I hope OpenAI comes out with an AI mail client so I can finally
| ditch Google completely.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Because it is still "usually" right, I still end up using
| google.
|
| Also google gives an AI generated answer at the top now, along
| with the sources so you can quickly check. I have caught a few
| bad answers like this.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe]
|
| Discussion on official post:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41071585
| jimbobthemighty wrote:
| I have found Perplexity to be very useful; if OpenAI can better
| Perplexity Alphabet has a big problem (at least until the
| opposition ruin their products by monetising them).
| RobinL wrote:
| Agreed. Highly recommend giving it a go for anyone who hasn't
| tried it. I'm a heavy (paid) chat gpt user, but for anything
| that I know in advance the answer will benefit from a web
| search (because it needs recent data), I use perplexity.
| freediver wrote:
| How do you reconcile having to use multiple apps to get to
| the information you want?
| Havoc wrote:
| The same way people have many tabs open in browsers
| presumably
| zachmu wrote:
| Seems like this spells the end of any website that vends
| information or answers to questions, as opposed to narratives.
| Narrative based writing (or images) will be fine, people will
| still visit and see ads. But anything matching the search term
| "how do I" or "when was the" is toast.
|
| Most websites in this business are, generously, hot garbage. And
| it's getting worse. So I imagine AI search will be quite
| successful at displacing them.
|
| The problem moving forward: how do we keep information-based
| websites in business so that AI can scrape them? There's a real
| risk of AI eating its own seed corn here. Seems only fair that AI
| scrapers pay for the content since they're not generating ad
| views (and are in fact stealing future ad views). But I have no
| idea how you would enforce that.
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| Too bad it's only a waitlist. iFixit apparently published fake
| repair guides [0] that then got crawled by ChatGPT for training
| [1]
|
| [0]
| https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Data+Connector++Replacement/147...
|
| [1]
| https://chatgpt.com/share/e52dc4dd-77e6-48a5-a7ca-77e3dfa39e...
| GaggiX wrote:
| >then got crawled by ChatGPT for training
|
| Not really, from the example you provided I think it's pretty
| clear that a custom system prompt was used and ChatGPT is using
| its own creativity, it doesn't have anything in common with the
| iFixit guide.
| deely3 wrote:
| Actually, you can ask ChatGPT and get the same results
| without any prompt. No custom prompt is necessary. It takes a
| few seconds: https://chatgpt.com/share/2f873b1a-e487-469f-a78
| b-7e57fdd91b...
| GaggiX wrote:
| This is pretty funny, it seems to work with random foods,
| iFixit doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.
| saurik wrote:
| So... more vaporware? :( Whatever happened to that new voice
| interface they "announced" back in May? I wish companies would
| stick to "releasing" things rather than "announcing" them...
| lossolo wrote:
| > Whatever happened to that new voice interface they
| "announced" back in May?
|
| Yeah, and it was suddenly made just the day before Google
| announced their models... and do you remember Sora? That was
| in February.
| anakaine wrote:
| The voice interface is present in the mobile apps.
|
| They know how to release to get press coverage.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Not the new voice interface, no: https://www.reddit.com/r
| /ChatGPT/comments/1d80q59/openai_jus...
| woopsn wrote:
| > Getting answers on the web can take a lot of effort, often
| requiring multiple attempts to get relevant results.
|
| Don't get me wrong, search has become extremely problematic, ...
| but how much effort does it take really? Compared to writing a
| letter, reading a map, walking half a mile etc?
|
| The google results for "music festivals in boone north carolina
| august" are completely adequate. If not then you search again,
| sure. What makes that "a lot of effort" compared to "asking
| follow-up questions like you would in a conversation"?
|
| According to Sequoia Capitol there is a $600B hole in this sector
| at the moment, which continues to grow.[1] They need to invent
| something akin to the global smartphone market, over the next 2-4
| years. Some thing new that solves significant problems for people
| that aren't already solved for free.
|
| [1] https://www.sequoiacap.com/article/ais-600b-question/
| zamadatix wrote:
| Current search is great for facts, alright for generic
| questions, and annoying for answering something. AI has almost
| the inverse balance, pairing the two is a decent savings (and
| also what Bing/Google are trying to do from the opposite end of
| things).
|
| Whether this gets AI out of being a money pit remains to be
| seen.
| OrigamiPastrami wrote:
| > Current search is great for facts, alright for generic
| questions, and annoying for answering something.
|
| I feel like Google used to be pretty great at answering
| questions until they started pushing ads more aggressively
| into their results, and then intentionally gimping their
| results (for instance if you put quotes around a word Google
| will happily ignore it, whereas this used to actually be an
| enforced rule).
|
| I'm not sure AI is the solution to this problem at all. I
| think it's about misaligned incentives and trying to shoehorn
| a new cash cow into the mix.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >how much effort does it take really?
|
| Depending on the query, _substantial_ effort.
|
| I know I've taken to just asking Bing (read: ChatGPT) if I just
| want something answered (FSVO answered) because sometimes I
| just don't feel like speaking Search Engine across multiple
| attempts to try and find something.
| variadix wrote:
| Depending on how SEO'd the thing you're looking for is it can
| range from easy (looking up docs, specs, etc.) to impossible
| (product recommendations) to find quality information (without
| knowing what sources are reliable beforehand). I'm not sure
| that LLMs will fix the problem, seems like curation is the
| issue and none of the major players are interested in that.
| gwervc wrote:
| This is in a way very good, as it will be another differentiator
| between smart people and others: average Joe will indulge himself
| in hallucinations while a few will retain the knowledge of
| querying a search engine, citing a source and critically think of
| what they read.
| zamadatix wrote:
| You can do things "the right way" (find sources, critically
| think about the info) in either (or other things like books),
| the common denominator is the person using the tool not going
| off the first thing they read from the tool as gospel.
| PodgieTar wrote:
| I don't know how fully I agree with this, to be honest. Or,
| yes, I do - but we obviously outsource a lot to the tools we
| use. Rightly or wrongly we expect our search engines to
| source good sources and high quality information. And that
| has been sort of inbred into people through years of internet
| use.
|
| Degrading the quality of the output of tools that were once
| considered reliable and safe is going to create problems, and
| the onus is not fully on the people using those tools, but on
| those creating them.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| "GPT5 is harder than we thought so maybe we can make money
| competing with Google?"
| romanovcode wrote:
| Maybe SEO will finally die. A man can dream.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| I can't remember the last time I had to wade through blogspam
| to find an answer to something I wanted. I also haven't had to
| endlessly look at stack overflow questions for a couple years
| now. I'm really grateful to stay away from most of what the
| modern web has turned into
| pmdr wrote:
| Too late, now that all SEO garbage has already been fed to
| LLMs. It will be regurgitated for eons.
| epolanski wrote:
| Slightly OT but in the end I think this is what people ultimately
| want and how the internet will morph into because 99% of Google
| results for many queries just want to spam you with ads
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| The problem with Rabbit R1 and Humane is that we're still a
| massive gulf away from a competent human personal assistant who I
| can rely on to understand what I'm saying and use common sense
| and reasoning to respond and perform tasks reliably.
|
| This feels like the same thing. If I ask my assistant about
| "music festivals in Boone North Carolina in august" and they give
| me 5 results, 0 of which actually match what I asked for I'm
| throwing my hands up and never asking them for help again.
|
| I use LLMs all the time, regularly throughout every single day,
| at work and home, and sometimes I really struggle to articulate
| what they're good at, but this doesn't feel like it. LLMs are
| really good at talking, so they're easy for casual users to
| interact with, and we keep seeing products which try to use them
| to "take away the friction" of various tasks, but I don't think
| that's it. I think they're at their best when used deliberately
| and critically.
|
| I think that GPTs were a good product, but not a popular one
| because most people haven't thought of a need which GPTs would
| fill. Search is a problem that everyone knows is a need and since
| "google sux" now its one that is ripe to be filled by a
| competitor. But I don't see how this is a real improvement, the
| problem with search is that the results are worse, not that they
| need to be summarized in a more friendly and accessible voice.
| Ancapistani wrote:
| > sometimes I really struggle to articulate what they're [LLMs]
| good at
|
| I think of them like a person with entry level experience and
| an IQ of about 80.
|
| That doesn't seem super useful, only... that "entry level
| experience" isn't in a single field. It's in _literally
| everything_.
|
| It takes some time to figure out how to interact with them in a
| way that reliably gives the results you expect, but once you
| do, you can get a lot done. Taken to an extreme, a mid-career
| professional can essentially become a team lead that manages
| LLM-driven processes instead of a team of employees.
| shmatt wrote:
| I will give OpenAI credit for having a capable product team that
| builds on top of the existing models.
|
| As much as I love Anthropic (the only AI company I pay), they
| seem to be investing almost nothing in pure product orgs. No way
| to manage chats, memory usage is very high on the web ui (700mb
| claude vs. 100mb chatgpt on my mac), artifacts can be very hit or
| miss. They've been hiring the brightest ML people, time to build
| some strong product orgs (I nominate myself, DM me anthropic
| people)
| ray__ wrote:
| I wonder how this will compare to Arc's "Browse for me" feature-
| at least for a single search (I don't thing the chat-based
| interface will be much of a value add here beyond just running a
| second "Browse for me"/SearchGPT). I really like the "Browse for
| me" feature, but only in specific cases, and I don't think I'd
| ever use it if it was a standalone app and not a built-in feature
| of Arc that also lets me run a quick google search.
| Oras wrote:
| Perplexity style is definitely better than Google. I can't
| remember the last time I googled something.
|
| Having it part of the OpenAI subscription, and assuming it will
| be accurate, I think Perplexity will have a problem.
|
| Let's see how long the waiting will last, still waiting for Sora
| access!
| xwall wrote:
| Perplexity has never been a player in the search engine game.
| OpenAI, a startup, has dominated the AI space, while Google has
| long dominated the search engine market. Can Perplexity compete
| against these two solid competitors, OpenAI and Google?
| joshstrange wrote:
| I like and use OpenAI products but I'm so sick of these
| announcements. Ship or GTFO. We are still waiting on a whole slew
| of things (like Sora or new voice chat) and I've lost track of
| what's actually released and what's just announced.
| Hizonner wrote:
| I'm guessing this is going to be even more opinionated than, say,
| Google has started to be, about what I'm allowed to search for
| and which results it's good for me to see. And...
|
| > Publishers will have a way to "manage how they appear in OpenAI
| search features,"
|
| Oh, goody.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| "OopsGPT: OpenAI just announced a new search tool. Its demo
| already got something wrong."
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/07/searc...
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I'm sure this is good, but it's starting to feel like "GPT" is
| the new "e" or "i" or ".com" - magical letters that transform
| your product into something cutting edge.
|
| I guess I'll withhold my cynicism until I try this. I kind of use
| chatgpt as a search engine anyway, so seems like a reasonable
| direction.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-25 23:12 UTC)