[HN Gopher] ChatGPT Search
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT Search
Author : marban
Score : 668 points
Date : 2024-10-31 16:41 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| rvz wrote:
| AKA Bing Search in ChatGPT.
|
| So it is not it's own search engine and is still using Bing for
| its results just like the rest of them.
| nerdponx wrote:
| That makes for a fair side-by-side comparison, then.
| findthewords wrote:
| If it's better than Bing or Google in presenting the relevant
| result in a condensed way, it's still a win for the users.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > If it's better than Bing or Google in presenting the
| relevant result in a condensed way
|
| This doesn't matter if the results are user-hostile, as both
| search engines are.
| arromatic wrote:
| Why would i want condensed results ? Why Do you think i would
| want to have a condensed version of this post [0] for
| example.
|
| [0] https://danluu.com/ballmer/
| sidcool wrote:
| Is it mentioned on that page? Didn't see it.
| tredre3 wrote:
| To provide relevant responses to your questions, ChatGPT
| searches based on your prompts and may share disassociated
| search queries with third-party search providers such as
| Bing. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and
| Microsoft's privacy policy. ChatGPT also collects general
| location information based on your IP address and may share
| it with third-party search providers to improve the accuracy
| of your results.
|
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/9237897-chatgpt-search
| (TFA links to it in the _How it works_ section)
| sidcool wrote:
| Thanks.
| solfox wrote:
| Reference? This isn't mentioned anywhere and certainly is not
| implied.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| No, it's using the Bing index. The generated responses are
| OpenAI
|
| Many search engines use the Bing index but return different
| results
| sidcool wrote:
| It will be fun to see how they stand up to Google and Perplexity.
| I feel they are a bit late in the search game, but excited to see
| what they cook
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Anyone can compete as long as they have a sufficiently robust
| crawl dataset as a foundation, no?
| jsheard wrote:
| A fossilized snapshot will only get them so far, and sites
| are increasingly opting to block AI-related crawlers.
| Apparently about a quarter of the top 1000 sites already
| block GPTBot: https://originality.ai/ai-bot-blocking
|
| I guess they could be using Bing as their search backend,
| which would mostly get around the blocking issue (except for
| searching Reddit which blocks Bingbot now).
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Certainly, countermeasures against crawler blocking will be
| a necessary component of effective search corpus
| aggregation in the go forward. Otherwise, search will
| balkanize around who will pay the most for access to public
| content. Common Crawl is ~10PB, this is not insurmountable.
|
| Edit: I understand there is a freerider/economic issue
| here, unsure how to solve that as the balance between
| search engine/gen AI systems and content stores/providers
| becomes more adversarial.
| jsheard wrote:
| AFAIK OpenAI currently respects robots.txt, so we'll have
| to see if they change that policy out of desperation at
| some point.
| andrethegiant wrote:
| > AFAIK OpenAI currently respects robots.txt
|
| I wonder to what degree -- for example, do they respect
| the Crawl-delay directive? For example, HN itself has a
| 30-second crawl-delay
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/robots.txt), meaning that
| crawlers are supposed to wait 30 seconds before
| requesting the next page. I doubt ChatGPT will delay a
| user's search of HN by up to 30 seconds, even though
| that's what robots.txt instructs them to do.
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| If it ends up anywhere near as popular as Google, those
| sites will have a financial incentive to allow the
| crawlers.
|
| The average person just does not discover content without
| the search engine recommending it.
| jsheard wrote:
| The whole issue that site owners have with these AI
| search engines is that there _isn 't_ a financial
| incentive for them to cooperate, since the summarization
| largely replaces the need for users to click through to
| the site the information came from. No click-through, no
| ad impressions, no possibility of the user being
| converted into a recurring visitor or paid subscriber,
| just pure freeloading by the search engine.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Anyone can compete as long as they have a functional URL and
| web page. Doesn't make them good competition, and doesn't
| mean users will use it.
|
| The issue is that "AI search" has been a hot topic for a
| while now. Google (the default everywhere) just rolled out
| their version to billions of users. Perplexity has been
| iterating and acquiring customers for a while. Obviously
| OpenAI has great potential and brand recognition, but are
| enough people still interested in switching that haven't yet?
| baby_souffle wrote:
| > Anyone can compete as long as they have a sufficiently
| robust crawl dataset as a foundation, no?
|
| There's some sticking power/network-effect/sticky-defaults
| effects, too, though.
|
| It's _trivial_ to do a google search from anywhere on an
| android device with at most a tap or two. You can probably
| get close if a 3rd party has a well integrated native app but
| that'll require work on the user's behalf to make it the
| default (where possible).
|
| Same goes for the default search engine for
| browsers/operating systems ... etc.
|
| I will absolutely be firing off queries to google and
| GPTSearch in parallel and doing a quick comparison between
| the two. I am especially curious to see how well queries like
| "I need the PCI-e 4 10-gig SFP+ card that is best supported /
| most popular with the /r/homelab community" goes. Google
| struggles to do anything other than link to forums where
| people are already asking similar questions.
| 7thpower wrote:
| I have learned to seriously question my instincts on when
| something is too late as there are many niches to fill and this
| is likely a building block for broader functionality.
|
| That being said, for all the talk about how bad google has
| become, I still prefer it to an unbroken bing.
| joshdavham wrote:
| > excited to see what they cook
|
| Me too! I've really started to dislike Google search recently
| and am super excited we now have more viable options!
| nextworddev wrote:
| I have turned bearish on Perplexity recently, this confirms it
| marban wrote:
| Perplexity was a cult in the first place.
| beng-nl wrote:
| I'm surprised at all the negativity on perplexity. I think
| it's a great approach (base answers on sources) and their
| product seems to deliver on the premise.
|
| That said, anecdotally, I find it's a bit hit-miss: if it's
| hit it's a huge improvement over google (and a minor
| improvement over chatgpt), if it's miss it's still good but
| get the feeling you won't get anywhere further by asking more
| questions.
| keiferski wrote:
| Perplexity is a really terrible name for a product and that
| alone will hold it back from being a real competitor.
| Me1000 wrote:
| It's not like ChatGPT (or ChatGTP as half of people call it)
| is much better.
| keiferski wrote:
| ChatGPT isn't a great name, but it's easy to say, spell,
| and remember. And at this point, a lot of people just know
| them as OpenAI, which is a great name.
|
| Perplexity sounds like a parody startup name from the
| Silicon Valley TV show. Way too complicated and unnatural.
| skybrian wrote:
| You're saying that now, but getting the initials in
| "ChatGPT" in the right order took a while to learn, so I
| wouldn't say it's easy to remember, and it seems easy to
| stumble saying it, too?
|
| It's all about familiarity. Once people learn it, it's
| not hard.
| keiferski wrote:
| But it didn't matter if they were in order or not,
| because ChatPTG or ChatTGP all go to the same place via
| Google, etc. It could have been called Chat + [Any 3
| characters] and been fine.
|
| Perplexity is just a nonsensical word (for those
| unfamiliar with the concept) that is too long and hard to
| spell. They'd be better off just chopping it down to
| Lexity, or Lex, or Plexity, or Plex, etc.
| SG- wrote:
| in French it translates to ChatFart when you read it out
| loud.
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| It became a good name once it became a watershed viral
| phenomenon. Everything being equal yeah not a great name
| but it defined a new hype cycle so it got a pass
| woadwarrior01 wrote:
| ChatGTP and other variants with a Levenshtein distance of 1
| from ChatGPT have been typosquatted to death by
| subscriptionware wrappers on the App Store and the Play
| Store. Many of them seem to be quite successful.
| soheil wrote:
| Agreed, it's as if someone completely ignored the meaning of
| the word and just decided what sounds good for an AI app.
| woadwarrior01 wrote:
| I've always thought that the name is very ironic and perhaps
| "certitude" would've been a better name.
| currymj wrote:
| A good language model is one with low perplexity.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perplexity
|
| Reasonable name for a language model startup.
| keiferski wrote:
| It would be a logical name if its customers were
| technicians familiar with LLMs, and not end businesses and
| consumers. Which is why Ford wasn't named Internal
| Combustion Engine, Apple wasn't named Graphics Processing
| Unit, etc.
| currymj wrote:
| Generative Pretrained Transformer is also a terrible
| brand name but it doesn't seem to matter.
| keiferski wrote:
| Because the name isn't Generative Pretrained Transformer,
| it's GPT.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Perplexity sounds no weirder to me for a tech product
| than than Google or Yahoo or Apple.
| stocknoob wrote:
| Would False Positive be a good name for a medical screening
| service?
| toephu2 wrote:
| Same with 'Claude 3.5 Sonnet'.
|
| At first I thought it was some piano piece like "Mazurkas,
| Op. 59" by Chopin, or had something to do with some French
| guy in the AI field.
| forbiddenvoid wrote:
| It took me about 5 minutes to figure out that Perplexity wasn't
| the product I needed. I'm not sure this is either, but we'll
| try it out just the same.
| yungtriggz wrote:
| @forbiddenvoid what is the product you need?
| rvz wrote:
| It's clear as to where Perplexity is eventually is going, and
| it will likely get acquired by Amazon. Here's why: [0]
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41121821
| nextworddev wrote:
| One thing about Amazon is that I have never seen them overpay
| for an acquisition (as in they really penny pinch and
| negotiate hard). So Perplexity's high price tag may turn
| Amazon off
| joshdavham wrote:
| I actually like Perplexity a lot. It's really good for doing
| research. But if this new chatGPT search thing is better, I'm
| gonna switch.
| veber-alex wrote:
| I have been using Perplexity with the AI engine set to Claude
| 3.5 Sonnet for a month now, mostly for programming related
| questions, and it has been amazing. I mostly stopped using
| google.
| speckx wrote:
| I do the same but with Kagi.
| SethMLarson wrote:
| Hah, OpenAI is becoming an ads business too. So much for
| something new, same old funding model for every centralized
| platform on the web.
| troymc wrote:
| OpenAI has ads? I thought it was mostly a freemium business
| model.
| SethMLarson wrote:
| I'm saying that by moving towards explicit "search" and
| "linking to sources" they have set the stage for being able
| to charge to be recommended by their search features (ie, ads
| and pay-to-rank, same as Google search).
|
| There aren't any ads in their demo, we haven't seen the real
| deal yet, but I'll be watching HN for that day.
| soheil wrote:
| Why, just because search has ads therefore anything that is
| a superset of that must also?
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Over the past two decades, ads have proven to be the only
| way to make money over the internet...
| ascorbic wrote:
| They're making $300 million per month in revenue right
| now, with no ads.
| croes wrote:
| Because ads bring money and companies love money
| breck wrote:
| If they are making billions from subscriptions, why on earth
| would they want to switch to an ads business?
| RodgerTheGreat wrote:
| Might have something to do with the fact that they're also
| still _losing_ billions operating their services at a loss!
| nomel wrote:
| Seems like the sane thing to do with would be put ads on
| those using the service for free.
| SethMLarson wrote:
| Making billions but spending trillions for no moat (GPUs and
| models aren't moats) means that the only moat they have are
| users. Users aren't paying enough to offset costs, the only
| way to get value from non-subscription users for their scale
| is through ads.
| soheil wrote:
| Slightly more accurate: they're raising billions making
| pennies.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| Because it is never enough. We see this time and time again.
| Once they are making billions, the people in charge will
| demand that they start making dozens of billions, and then
| hundreds. The growth must never cease, because the moment you
| stop growing, you can't sell the dream that supports
| ridiculous PE ratios anymore.
|
| Google was a very profitable business 10 years ago and the
| search was still decent. In the last decade they absolutely
| butchered their core product (and the internet along with it)
| in an effort to squeeze more ad dollars out, because it's not
| the level of profitability that they need to maintain, but
| the growth of that profitability.
|
| Microsoft was a ridiculously profitable company, but that is
| not enough, they must show growth. So they add increasingly
| user hostile features to their core product because the
| current crop of management needs to see geometric growth
| during their 5 year tenure. And then in 5 years, the next
| crop of goobers will need to show geometric growth as well to
| justify their bonuses.
|
| Think about this for a moment: the entire ecosystem is built
| on the (entirely preposterous) premise that there must be
| constant geometric growth. Nobody needs to make a decision or
| even accept that this is long term sustainable, every
| participant just wants the system to keep doing this during
| their particular 5-10 year tenure.
|
| It's an interesting showcase of essentially an evolutionary
| algorithm/swarm optimizer falling into a local optimum while
| a much better global optimum is out of reach because the real
| world is something like a Rastrigin function with copious
| amounts of noise with an unknowable but fat tailed
| distribution.
|
| <rant/> by a hedge fund professional.
| breck wrote:
| This is such a good rant, and I think you should develop it
| into an essay and I think there is an important catchy
| natural equation to mine here.
| drilbo wrote:
| >It's an interesting showcase of essentially an
| evolutionary algorithm/swarm optimizer falling into a local
| optimum while a much better global optimum is out of reach
| because the real world is something like a Rastrigin
| function with copious amounts of noise with an unknowable
| but fat tailed distribution.
|
| I've never heard it framed like this before, that's
| beautiful.
| croes wrote:
| To make more billions
| nomel wrote:
| * to lose lose less billions [1].
|
| [1] https://www.thestack.technology/microsoft-earnings-
| openai/
| jajko wrote:
| You can ask the same for ie Apple where you pay a proper
| premium for products, yet their ad business keeps growing
| slowly into respectable proportions, and not by accident.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| they're not making billions from subscriptions
| layer8 wrote:
| They get inspired by streaming services doing the same.
| stocknoob wrote:
| Switch? Por que no los dos?
| Xcelerate wrote:
| How long until advertisements are subtly introduced? I didn't
| notice any specific brand of limoncello recommended in their
| demo.
| findthewords wrote:
| I hope very quickly. The sooner they start competing with
| Google for ads the better.
| solfox wrote:
| Are ads what people want?
| gk1 wrote:
| People want whatever they searched for. If the ads provide
| that, then sure. That's why Google and Meta are the size
| that they are...
| croes wrote:
| Most of the time I don't search for products so there is
| nothing I want to buy.
| sundaeofshock wrote:
| Google is the size it is due to monopoly power.
| goatlover wrote:
| I don't want ads when I search.
| kaonwarb wrote:
| I don't want ads. But I can't deny that ads are the only
| business model with a chance of scaling to compete with
| Google.
|
| If that's what they want to do in this space, which is not
| a given.
| boweruk wrote:
| No but once ChatGPT starts threatening Google's revenue
| model, maybe they will start putting effort into improving
| their drastically deteriorating search engine.
| riku_iki wrote:
| they need to win search share to threaten Google's
| revenue model: take traffic from google.com, so google
| will sell ads. Going to ads busyness is not necessary for
| this.
| Teever wrote:
| But why is that good for me?
|
| Why do I care if Google succeeds or dies?
|
| If anything I want them to die for ad infested they've
| made the internet. I don't want ads in either chatGPT or
| Google Search.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Plenty of times the answer is yes.
| TZubiri wrote:
| 5 to 10 years
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Honestly, if I can disable ads by paying them, then I'm ok with
| it.
|
| Google will suck all your data even if you pay, and link the
| entire earth of services to your identity.
|
| For now, chatgpt doesn't care, and I already pay for what they
| provide.
|
| May they kill Google.
|
| 20 years old me would freak out hearing me that, they used to
| be my heroes.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| You either die a hero or _mumble mumble_
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| You are thinking you can pay them to not use your data? Think
| again. They will sneakily use your data anyway. If not yours,
| then the data of people who do not change setting xyz. Oops,
| the last update must have reset that option for some users.
| swatcoder wrote:
| > Honestly, if I can disable ads by paying them, then I'm ok
| with it.
|
| The modern maxim is: _any content platform large enough to
| host an ad sales department will sell ads_
|
| Vanishingly few (valuable) consumers have zero tolerance for
| ads, so not selling ads means leaving huge sums of money on
| the table once you get to a certain scale. Large
| organizations have demonstrated that they can't resist that
| opportunity.
|
| The road out is to either convince everyone to have zero
| tolerance for ads (good luck), to just personally opt for
| disperse, smaller vendors that distinguish themselves in a
| niche by not indulging, or to just support and use
| adversarial ad blockers in order to take personal control.
| Hoping that the next behemoth that everybody wants to use
| will protect you from ads is a non-starter. Sooner or later,
| they're going to take your money _and_ serve you ads, just
| like the others.
| croes wrote:
| You can pay to get fewer ads
| arcticbull wrote:
| So the issue is if you let people opt out by paying you're
| left with a low intent, likely lower net worth group of
| people to advertise to. As a result those eyeballs are worth
| less. The advertisers will turn to other platforms if you
| only let the worst people see their ads.
|
| Unless enough people all pay, the whole thing stops working.
| But there aren't enough people who will pay because most
| people don't care.
|
| Tldr: the ad supported business model fundamentally doesn't
| work if you let all your best products (you) opt out by
| paying. It requires them to pay an amount far in excess of
| what they would be willing to pay for the system to work.
| spearman wrote:
| There's some truth to that, but Netflix, YouTube, etc seem
| to be OK with both ad-supported and paid ad-free versions,
| so I think the logic you described does not always dominate
| the considerations.
| arcticbull wrote:
| I think you're right that it's not universal - maybe
| something to do with medium and attention?
| drilbo wrote:
| They're definitely still using your data though
| nuz wrote:
| It's already happened in a subtle way via who got to partner
| with them to be displayed in results vs not.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| 2 years for ads, 6 years to remove the yellow background.
| M4v3R wrote:
| I think you're being _very_ generous with these 2 years.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| Yeah, I suppose OpenAI also speedran the "make noble
| promises to not become evil / become evil" pipeline too.
| jsheard wrote:
| Probably not long, some users already got A/B'ed into testing
| "sponsored results"
|
| https://i.imgur.com/UpAptFL.png
| FriedPickles wrote:
| The response on the left references specific products, but
| where's the evidence that it's sponsored?
| alwa wrote:
| Aside from the marketing-ish tone and specific deeplinks to
| product purchase pages, the prominent Amazon logo and
| product description headline implied some degree of
| affiliation to my eyes. It seems like the evidence is that
| it would be foolish not to take the money for presenting
| such an obvious referral of a motivated buyer.
|
| Frankly the example they posted seems like a fairly happy
| one, where the user is explicitly implying that they're
| seeking a specific physical product to introduce to their
| life. We've all seen where those monetization incentives
| lead over time though.
|
| But you're right--not even so much as a tiny word "Ad" like
| Google does...
| citizenpaul wrote:
| It could just be affiliate links? Wow billions of dollars
| poured into AI so it can serve up referral links. A
| boring dystopia indeed.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Not long before it's forbidden by law with rules like "if you
| say the name of one brand, you must name at least two
| competitors" I suspect.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| That'll be the European version.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Don't Americans also have rules about hidden advertising
| like that in regular media?
| tiahura wrote:
| American law generally favors freedom of expression.
| arcticbull wrote:
| There are several classes of restrictions on free speech
| in the US. These include: obscenity, fraud, speech
| integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent
| lawless action, speech that violates intellectual
| property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and
| --- most relevant here --- commercial speech such as
| advertising.
|
| Advertising has far less protection than is ordinarily
| afforded to the kind of speech you might do as a person.
| bandrami wrote:
| The American model prefers "sponsored material should be
| identified as such" though that's only active for
| broadcasting currently
| josefritzishere wrote:
| They might wait a whole week.
| breck wrote:
| Why would they ever want to sell ads?
|
| They did not get addicted to selling ads, have billions in
| revenue from paying subscribers, and don't have to wean
| themselves off of ads (as Google and Meta would love to do).
| 23B1 wrote:
| Because Sam Altman needs to buy another Greubel Forsey, of
| course.
| kredd wrote:
| Why make $1 when you can make $100?
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Because they are massively structurally unprofitable right
| now?
| axus wrote:
| I'd be happy to have another Google clone, that doesn't have a
| login and is not a chat session. Go to https://search.ai , type
| my search query and look through the results, with ads on the
| side.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| It is much more expensive to run a search query with AI. I
| don't think ads can pay for it.
| typon wrote:
| Asked it to generate code for a library that was released in the
| past year - GPT-4 couldn't do it and this one just did it
| flawlessly. I am super impressed.
| alanfranz wrote:
| Hello bot. This is a search functionality not a new model.
| typon wrote:
| Maybe you don't understand how this works?
|
| It's able to query the relevant documentation, put it in its
| context and then use that to generate code. It's extremely
| relevant to giving existing models superior functionality.
| alanfranz wrote:
| I haven't yet tried it yet. But that comment seemed
| extremely vague and misleading.
| RobinL wrote:
| Same! (asking it to write code for the foss lib I maintain).
| This is immediately very useful.
| arromatic wrote:
| Can it find obscure sites like marginalia does or personal blogs
| posted in hn or it's just another bing + ai summarizer ?
| ColinHayhurst wrote:
| I asked for long tail blog posts about interesting places to
| visit in Paris. I got one result; from an obscure website
| called Vogue.
| paul7986 wrote:
| https://chatgpt.com/?hints=search (handy link to it)
| bityard wrote:
| That link just takes me to what looks like a normal chatgpt
| prompt. (I tried asking it the same things they showed in the
| article and I just get generic AI answers, not web search
| results.)
| DrBenCarson wrote:
| Only available for Plus subscribers
| bhy wrote:
| Are you plus or team user and logged in? The link is to the
| normal chatgpt prompt, but with the "Search" button enabled.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Im not logged into GPT (am subscribed for this month tho on
| my iPhone but that's separate) and able to do a web search
| and or ask GPT a question.
|
| Actually i am logged into my iCloud on my macbook so guess
| that's why im seeing the search on that device of mine (not
| seeing on another where Im not logged into iCloud).
| sunaookami wrote:
| And https://chatgpt.com/?hints=search&q=%s if you want to add a
| custom search engine to your browser
| xnorswap wrote:
| "Introducing" without actually just linking the search page.
|
| That's not an introduction, that's a teaser trailer.
|
| If they want this to be a viable search it needs to be available
| quickly, and anonymously from something quick to type in.
|
| Google would have been annoying as shit if you had to go to
| google.com/search , let alone then log in.
| posterman wrote:
| I mean, until there is an alternative in the space that has a
| (good), free, anonymous ai web search then I think we can
| probably assume you are confusing what you want with what is
| "viable"
| solfox wrote:
| It's available today for Plus users at chatgpt.com.
| timeon wrote:
| Using search with log-in is pretty big red flag for me.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Is there any indication they're willing to improve on google in
| terms of e.g. excluding commercial results? If not it's not clear
| how this improves anything. Google has been excellent at semantic
| search for a long time; the issue has been the lack of controls
| to filter out the SEO bullshit and to remove the AI stuff from
| the top and the right of the results. It's been way too easy to
| game search with sufficient funding for well over a decade now
| and the AI-generated crap is a long way from production-ready (in
| terms of quality; obviously it generates _something_ ).
| arromatic wrote:
| Yeah . It needs to filter seo optimized articles first and
| search more niche sites or it will be your average chat gpt
| with search project from github.
| zaptrem wrote:
| Could OpenAI make it impossible for startups to try to build AI
| search engines by signing all these paid agreements with
| publishers?
| soheil wrote:
| I made one very similar it's basically a wrapper around
| duckduckgo https://foxacid.ai
| awb wrote:
| LLMs have the chance to cannibalize the web and become the
| primary interface for knowledge. But if websites remain the final
| destination, it's good for content creators.
|
| The only other way to kill the web without killing LLMs in the
| process would be to create a way for people to upload structured
| public content directly into an LLM's training. That would delay
| public content into release batches unless training can be sped
| up significantly.
| nextworddev wrote:
| "Way to put public content directly into an LLM training" -
| sounds like Chatgpt
| awb wrote:
| I'm imagining LLMs might eventually have an upload tool,
| similar to Google's site map upload, for registering content
| proactively instead of needing to be discovered through
| crawling the web or training on chat data.
| some_furry wrote:
| So glad that we're boiling the ocean for this.
| JSDevOps wrote:
| That's what I thought
| shitter wrote:
| I asked it the current weather in my area and the temperature was
| off by 23 degrees F.
| Maxion wrote:
| What the hell did you ask it / what was the source? I just did
| the same thing and it gave me the correct answer and used my
| countries best known meteroligcal site?
| shitter wrote:
| It used good sources but appeared not to extract the
| information correctly.
|
| Repeating the same query in the same chat session gave me an
| accurate answer.
| phreeza wrote:
| I gave it a quick spin and my initial impression is much worse
| than perplexity.
| grbsh wrote:
| Is this more than just ChatGPT with search API resulted
| concatenated the prompt?
|
| It feels like it might be. It feels tasteful in the same way that
| Apple ecosystem integrations just work really nicely and
| intuitively. But then again, there is an art to keying and
| retrieving embeddings, and it might just be that.
| qwertox wrote:
| Makes me question why Google never bothered to create something
| like search sessions which could be enriched with comments/notes
| and would be located in a sidebar just like the chats in
| ChatGPT/Claude/Mistral are.
|
| They really had the potential to do something interesting, but
| were just focused on their ad metrics with the "good enough"
| search box. What have they been doing all the time?
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| Collecting people's data and making money from that.
| astrange wrote:
| Google doesn't make money from "collecting people's data",
| they show you ads.
|
| If they're collecting data it doesn't even work; I make no
| effort to hide from them and none of their ads are targeted
| to me. Meta, though, they're good at it.
| arromatic wrote:
| Can you tell me a bit more ? What do you mean by search session
| ?
| qwertox wrote:
| Let's see, if I go to " [?] -> History -> Grouped History" on
| the top right of the Chrome browser, I see a "Search History"
| ( chrome://history/grouped ).
|
| For example `8 hours ago: "autohotkey hotkeys"` with 4 links
| to pages which I visited while searching.
|
| But this is a Chrome feature, not a Google Search feature.
| https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity does (sometimes?
| can't see it right now) have a grouping feature of all the
| searches made, but this is more of a search log than a search
| management feature.
|
| So chrome://history/grouped is the closest to what I mean,
| but I can't pin or manage these history groups, enrich them
| with comments or even files, like pdf's which could then get
| stored in Google Drive, as well as get indexed for better
| searches.
| arromatic wrote:
| oh I thought you meant something like commenting under
| search result links like youtube videos.
|
| I might be mistaken but i think ff mobile does something
| similar of grouping search session
| Liquix wrote:
| the FAANG giants have been government assets for ~15+ years
| [0]. they don't have to turn a profit every quarter, innovate,
| or make their search any better because they no longer play by
| the rules a normal business does. they are a critical "too big
| to fail" component of the state's global surveillance system.
|
| [0] https://static1.makeuseofimages.com/wordpress/wp-
| content/upl...
| unnouinceput wrote:
| OpenAI is Microsoft. Microsoft is a FAANG giant.
| lucianbr wrote:
| How is that relevant? Microsoft bought OpenAI, didn't
| create it by R&D, so the assertion stands: giants don't do
| new things, for whatever reason.
| SideQuark wrote:
| The amount of fundamental breakthroughs at places like
| IBM, Bell, Xerox, all beg to differ with you.
|
| In some fields of CS, places like MS research garner
| nearly 50% of all top conference publications.
| astrange wrote:
| Microsoft is literally not in "FAANG". But they are in
| MANGA.
| hidelooktropic wrote:
| Microsoft is their leading investor. They don't technically
| own OpenAI.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Not just surveillance. Power projection. I wonder what
| impacts you can have on foreign economies by playing with
| quality of these tech giants outputs?
| scq wrote:
| Linking the slide deck that caused Google to start encrypting
| the traffic between their own data centers running on their
| own fiber is perhaps not the most compelling argument that
| Google is a state asset.
|
| https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/tech-
| companies-s...
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > they don't have to turn a profit every quarter,
|
| And, yet, aside from Aramco, they are the most profitable
| companies in the history of the world.
| summerlight wrote:
| I guess now Google's search stack is too complicated and not
| many engineers understand what to do in order to introduce a
| novel, big feature integrated into the full stack vertically
| and horizontally. And those few capable of doing so are
| probably completely out of bandwidth, so some random ambitious
| PM cannot pull their hands into uncertain green field projects.
| modeless wrote:
| Chrome did add a sidebar that shows search sessions (queries
| grouped with the pages you visited on that topic). Used to be
| called "Journeys". I don't think you can add notes. I never
| found it useful in the slightest and I doubt notes would have
| made it any better. Chrome has been adding random UI features
| like that over time, but I haven't found any of them at all
| useful in many years.
| wifipunk wrote:
| Looks like they've also enabled advanced voice mode on the
| windows desktop app.
|
| Does not support search for anyone wondering.
| illnewsthat wrote:
| Looks like this was timed to coincide with Google adding search
| grounding data to Gemini API:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42008834 //
| https://developers.googleblog.com/en/gemini-api-and-ai-studi...
| 7thpower wrote:
| They are taking a page out of Microsoft's strategy of clouding
| out all sunlight.
| jameshiew wrote:
| The new web search icon appeared for me straightaway in the
| ChatGPT macOS desktop app, within an in-progress conversation,
| without even having to restart. Before I'd even seen this
| official launch announcement. Very smooth!
| og_kalu wrote:
| """Search will be available at chatgpt.com (opens in a new
| window), as well as on our desktop and mobile apps. All ChatGPT
| Plus and Team users, as well as SearchGPT waitlist users, will
| have access today. Enterprise and Edu users will get access in
| the next few weeks. We'll roll out to all Free users over the
| coming months."""
|
| Can confirm that free users who signed up for the waitlist can
| use it right now (even if they didn't actually get in)
| qwertox wrote:
| Can confirm this as well. I switched to free around a month ago
| and got access to this today. I did join the waitlist some
| weeks ago.
| rty32 wrote:
| I signed up for the wait list as well and got the email.
| However there is no search button on the web interface (free
| tier). Is there anything I am missing?
| grahamj wrote:
| To my mind one of the great benefits of LLMS is the possibility
| of searching without handing over some of the most personal
| information that exists - your search history.
|
| I'm happy OpenAI is advancing LLM-based search but I won't be
| using it in earnest until it's local.
| grbsh wrote:
| How will this be gamed for neo-seo spam?
| 7thpower wrote:
| OpenAIs press release game is unreal. This totally overshadowed
| Google's grounding release in my feeds.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| I would be surprised if this doesn't take share out of google's
| pie
| bagels wrote:
| A new front has been opened in the SEO wars.
| randcraw wrote:
| I really don't see the value of summarizing/repackaging web
| search hits. Given that 99% of SEO-tuned web content is just
| shilling for vendors who don't want to be seen, LLM search
| summarization will just repackage those ads into a more palatable
| format that is LESS useful than the original, while more
| successfully hiding the obvious signatures that used to be a
| clear warning sign that...
| THE.FOLLOWING.CONTENT.IS.MANIULATIVE.CRAP.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| People who think AI summarizations are useful suck at reading.
|
| So they probably wouldn't notice the warning signs anyways.
| arromatic wrote:
| I think if they improve the algorithm maybe they can actually
| present seo free results.
| randcraw wrote:
| You don't think SEO-LLMs will evolve to redirect search-LLMs
| to 'see the world' the way the SEO-LLMs want it to? I foresee
| SEO-LLM-brinkmanship as the inevitable outcome. Soon THIS
| will be the catalyst for the real Skynet -- battling smart ad
| engines.
| arromatic wrote:
| Only if openai is willing to play it . If they follow
| google than seo-llm won't even exist because there will be
| no need for it.
| ghayes wrote:
| I tend to agree. If I ask ChatGPT what is the best way to make
| pasta, it will pull from every source it's ever been trained
| on. If it decides to search the web, it will mostly cater to
| one or two sources.
| cloudking wrote:
| I think the value here is not in searching for SEO crap, but
| turning it on when you want to get references to the most
| current information relevant to your query.
|
| For example, if you ask LLMs to build code using the three.js
| library, nearly all of them will reference version r128.
| Presumably because that version has the largest representation
| in the training data set. Now, you can turn this on and ask it
| to reference the latest version, and it will search the web and
| find r170 and the latest documentation to consider in it's
| response.
|
| I was already doing this before by adding "search the web for
| the latest version first" in my prompts, now I can just click a
| button. That's useful.
| lawn wrote:
| To me the kombination of Kagi's good search results with their
| AI summarizer has been very useful.
|
| Of course, layering an LLM on top of garbage will still produce
| garbage.
| holtkam2 wrote:
| How is this different from RAG using a search API? I didn't get
| their blurb about this being a standalone fine-tuned model.
| blixt wrote:
| One thing that is quite unfortunate with the state of SEO and the
| web in general today is that when I asked "what are the latest
| versions of common programming languages and when were they
| released?" a large amount of the sources were "13 Tools You
| Should Learn Now" and the like. This might be a solvable problem
| within the search API they provide to the LLM, but for now I
| wouldn't trust current LLMs to be able to filter out these
| articles as less trustworthy than the official website of the
| programming language in question.
| jsheard wrote:
| Given how many of those SEO spam sites are themselves generated
| by ChatGPT now, OpenAI can simply back-reference their own logs
| to find out which sites are probably SEO spam while everyone
| else is left guessing. That's vertical integration!
| arromatic wrote:
| If they do that , That's a genius idea.
| code51 wrote:
| So it'll turn to yet another arms race - similar to
| captcha, cybersecurity and nuclear weapons. SEO will use AI
| to fill in fluff inside AI-generated content (which is
| already done).
|
| It won't directly match ChatGPT logs and OpenAI would just
| be pouring precious compute to a bottomless pit trying to
| partial-match.
| jerjerjer wrote:
| Serve Claude-generated version to OpenAI bots. Serve
| OpenAI-generated version to Claude bots. Problem solved.
|
| Serve users a random version and A/B test along the way.
| DSingularity wrote:
| I'm sure they will be more subtle than that otherwise it will
| get circumvented.
|
| I'm sure they will/are tackling this at the model level.
| Train them to both generate good completions while also
| embedding text with good performance at separating generated
| and human text.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Would someone even want to circumvent it though? Most sites
| won't care very much about encouraging scrapers to include
| them in LLM training data, it's not like you get paid.
| itissid wrote:
| Or offer two search results when they suspect one is spam and
| see which one a user likes and train off of that, just the
| way they do now with ChatGPT.
| inhumantsar wrote:
| this is why I pay for Kagi. granted those results still come
| up, but you can block specific domains from ever appearing in
| the results and configure how listicles are displayed.
| speedgoose wrote:
| As an alternative, ublacklist is free and open-source.
| arromatic wrote:
| Average serp page has 10 results . What if all 10 matches
| with your blacklist ? Not to mention you can't do anything
| if the engine dosen't search deeper .
| speedgoose wrote:
| You probably have to browse to the next page or refine
| the search terms.
| arromatic wrote:
| How many can you block and filter manually ? 10 ? 100 ? 10k ?
| Who will test sites for the blocklist ? The domain block
| feature is great but unless it's collaborative listing it's
| not gonna be super effective.
| hughesjj wrote:
| .... Test sites for the blocklist? What?
|
| Also they do share the most blocked/raised/lowered etc
| sites: https://kagi.com/stats?stat=leaderboard
|
| We've had this problem of "good defaults" before with ad
| trackers blocking domains. I'm sure it'll be Sooner than
| later when some community lists become popular and begin
| being followed en mass
| arromatic wrote:
| I meant your average user can test a handful of sites if
| they are seo spam or good sites but a single search
| return 10+ results and even more when a user searches
| multiple things , multiple times a day . Average user
| doesn't have the time to test these many websites.
| hmottestad wrote:
| It's super effective for me because I just block stuff as
| things pop up that I don't want. I've also added more
| weight to certain domains that I want more results from. I
| wouldn't want anyone touching my config, it's mine and it
| works great!
| speckx wrote:
| 1,000
| blharr wrote:
| Kagi is admittedly pretty great for this.
| benob wrote:
| This is the next step for SEO: be able to game ChatGPT prompts
| trying to filter out SEO crap...
| joshdavham wrote:
| How do you think people will try to game AI-based search?
| ben_w wrote:
| SEO spam is always going to focus on the biggest market, and by
| doing so they can be completely transparent and obvious to
| whoever they're not trying to fool.
|
| I'd assume right now the SEO target is still mainly Google
| rather than ChatGPT, but that's only an "I recon" not a
| citation.
|
| If and when ChatGPT does become the main target for SEO spam,
| then Googling may start giving good results again.
| adamc wrote:
| Wouldn't it be "I reckon"? :-)
| ben_w wrote:
| D'oh, yes. :)
| hmottestad wrote:
| For Java I got:
|
| As of October 31, 2024, the latest version of Java is Java 23,
| released on September 17, 2024. The most recent Long-Term
| Support (LTS) version is Java 21, released on September 19,
| 2023.
|
| Which all seems correct and accurate.
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| This is because it is referencing and regurgitating Wikipedia
| articles.
| hmottestad wrote:
| Nope. It had found an Oracle page for the LTS date and an
| OpenJDK page for the latests version.
| blixt wrote:
| Yeah I did also find it to be mostly accurate. However,
| seeing the sources I felt like I kind of have to check all
| the languages just in case it picked up information from a
| random "X ways to do Y" article that might not have been
| prioritizing accuracy. And for this search query I did see
| several languages' actual websites, but I did another very
| similar query earlier where 9 out of 12 results were all
| numbered list articles clearly intended for SEO. 2 of them
| were actual official sites. And 1 was what appears to be a
| decent attempt at talking about programming languages (i.e.
| not SEO only).
| notatoad wrote:
| >what are the latest versions of common programming languages
| and when were they released?
|
| is this a real question you needed an answer to, or a
| hypothetical you posed to test the quality of search results?
|
| _of course_ you 're going to get listicles for a query like
| that, because it sounds like a query specifically chosen to
| find low-quality listicles.
| jerjerjer wrote:
| I honestly doubt there exist an actual reputable resource
| having it on a same page. Each language tracks their own
| latest version(s). Wikipedia tracks latest versions for a
| variety of software but it's on different pages.
| skydhash wrote:
| > _when I asked "what are the latest versions of common
| programming languages and when were they released?"_
|
| The issue is with the query itself. You're assuming that
| there's some oracle that will understand your question and
| surface the relevant information for you. Most likely, it will
| use the word themselves as part of the query, which SEO sites
| will exploit.
|
| A more pragmatic search workflow would be to just search for
| "most common programming languages used" [0], then used the
| Wikipedia page to get the relevant information [1]. Much more
| legwork, but with sources. And still quite fast.
|
| [0]: (Screenshot) https://ibb.co/ggBLy8G
|
| [1]: (Screenshot) https://ibb.co/H4g5bDf
| sireat wrote:
| This was a nice counterexample to other queries that seemed
| quite decent.
|
| I got: Programming Language Latest Version
| Release Date Python 3.12.0 October 2, 2024 ???!!!!!
| Java SE 22 March 2024 JavaScript ECMAScript 2024 June
| 2024 C++ C++23 December 2023 C# 12.0 September 2024
| Ruby 3.3.0 December 25, 2023 PHP 8.3.0 November 2023
| Swift 6.0 September 2024 Go 1.22 August 2024 !!!
| Rust 1.75 October 2024 !!!! Kotlin 2.0.0 May 21, 2024 !!!
|
| This is pretty bad. (???!!! added by me)
|
| However, my follow up query "Provide primary web page for each
| language listed above" was quite decent:
|
| Here are the primary websites for the programming languages
| mentioned: Python: https://www.python.org/
| Java: https://www.oracle.com/java/ JavaScript:
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript
| C++: https://isocpp.org/ C#:
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/ Ruby:
| https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ PHP: https://www.php.net/
| Swift: https://www.swift.org/ Go: https://go.dev/
| Rust: https://www.rust-lang.org/ Kotlin:
| https://kotlinlang.org/
|
| The problem was with the 3rd query "Provide latest version for
| each language as mentioned on the primary website for that
| language."
|
| That brought back the first result basically unchanged.
|
| So certainly this is a work in progress but very promising.
| pvo50555 wrote:
| Axel Springer! Now that's high-quality news sources...
| vzaliva wrote:
| If there is a way to add it as search engine to Firefox?
| GavCo wrote:
| "The search model is a fine-tuned version of GPT-4o, post-trained
| using novel synthetic data generation techniques, including
| distilling outputs from OpenAI o1-preview."
|
| More info on model distillation: https://openai.com/index/api-
| model-distillation/
| wiremine wrote:
| I played around with it a bit, here are some hot takes.
|
| For context, I first tried this procession of searches on the Mac
| OS app.
|
| 1. "Who won the world series" 2. Who was the MVP?" 3. "Give me
| his bio"
|
| My observations:
|
| 1. UX: The "search" button feels oddly placed, but I can't put my
| finger on it. But once I got it is a toggle, it wasn't a bit
| deal.
|
| 2. The first result had 3 logos, headlines and timestamps
| delineated, and easy to ready. The second one and third ones
| included a "Sources" button that opened a fly open menu. Clicking
| those opened a web link. The third result also included images in
| the fly open.
|
| 3. Citations were also inlined. The third result, for the bio,
| included a citation per paragraph.
|
| 4. It wasn't as fast as google. Which makes sense, given it's
| going through the LLM. But it will take a while to rewire my
| brain to expect slower responses to search.
|
| 5. Overall, I found the chat interface a very intuitive
| interface.
|
| The second search I asked was "Give me a plan for a Thanksgiving
| meal."
|
| I to a long response that felt like a weird mashup of LLM-
| generated content and search results:
|
| 1. A list of menu selections
|
| 2. Links to some recipes
|
| 3. Prepration timeline
|
| 4. Shopping list
|
| 5. Additional tips
|
| There were 15 citations listed in the popup button, but only 3
| inlined.
|
| This was... not great. A traditional list of search results feels
| better here.
|
| Overall, I like the direction. Innovation in search has been dead
| for close to 10 years, and this feels like I'd use it for certain
| inquiries.
| jdulay19 wrote:
| I wonder how long until it will offer reverse image search, too.
| taco_emoji wrote:
| whatever
| EcommerceFlow wrote:
| I wonder if this is their own web scraper, or if they're using
| Bing API?
|
| As a very experienced SEO, this is pretty exciting nonetheless, a
| new front in the online war opening up.
|
| If they're using their own scraper/search algorithms, it'll be
| interesting to see how they weigh the winners and losers compared
| to how Google does it.
| niam wrote:
| Genuine question: is there a present or planned value proposition
| for people like me who already have decent search skills? Or are
| these really for children/elders who (without making any
| normative claim about whether this is a good thing or not) can't
| be arsed to perform searches themselves?
|
| Does someone else have good search skills but mingle traditional
| search engines with LLMs anyways? Why?
|
| I use LLMs every day but wouldn't trust one to perform searches
| for me yet. I feel like you have to type more for a result that's
| slower and wordier, and that might stop early when it amasses
| what it _thinks_ are answers from low effort SEO farms.
| lighthazard wrote:
| LLMs really make it easy to quickly find documentation for me.
| Across a huge software project like Mediawiki with so much
| legacy and caveats, having an LLM parse the docs and give me
| specific information without me hoping that someone at
| Stackoverflow did it or if I'm lucky enough to stumble across
| what I was looking for.
| hughesjj wrote:
| I think it's more filling the niche that Google's self
| immolation in the name of ad revenue started. Besides kagi,
| there aren't really any solid search engines today (even ddg),
| and OpenAI has a reach way beyond kagi could dream of outside a
| billion dollars in marketing.
| Willamin wrote:
| I find myself being unable to search for more complex subjects
| when I don't know the keywords, specialized terminology, or
| even the title of a work, yet I have a broad understanding of
| what I'd like to find. Traditional search engines (I'll jump
| between Kagi, DuckDuckGo, and Google) haven't proved as useful
| at pointing me in the right direction when I find that I need
| to spend a few sentences describing what I'm looking for.
|
| LLMs on the other hand (free ChatGPT is the only one I've used
| for this, not sure which models) give me an opportunity to
| describe in detail what I'm looking for, and I can provide
| extra context if the LLM doesn't immediately give me an answer.
| Given LLM's propensity for hallucinations, I don't take its
| answers as solid truth, but I'll use the keywords, terms, and
| phrases in what it gives me to leverage traditional search
| engines to find a more authoritative source of information.
|
| ---
|
| Separately, I'll also use LLMs to search for what I suspect is
| obscure-enough knowledge that it would prove difficult to wade
| through more popular sites in traditional search engine results
| pages.
| Lws803 wrote:
| You might like what we're building in that sense :D (full
| disclosure, I'm the founder of Beloga). We're building a new
| way for search with programmable knowledge. You're
| essentially able to call on search from Google, Perplexity
| other search engines by specifying them as @ mentions
| together with your detailed query.
| erosivesoul wrote:
| I also find some use for this. Or I often ask if there's a
| specific term for a thing that I only know generally, which
| usually yields better search results, especially for obscure
| science and technology things. The newer GPTs are also decent
| at math, but I still use Wolfram Alpha for most of that stuff
| just because I don't have to double check it for
| hallucinations.
| layer8 wrote:
| > I find myself being unable to search for more complex
| subjects when I don't know the keywords, specialized
| terminology, or even the title of a work, yet I have a broad
| understanding of what I'd like to find.
|
| For me this is typically a multi-step process. The results of
| a first search give me more ideas of terms to search for, and
| after some iteration I usually find the right terms. It's a
| bit of an art to search for content that maybe isn't your end
| goal, but will help you search for what you actually seek.
|
| LLMs can be useful for that first step, but I always revert
| to Google for the final search.
|
| Also, Google Verbatim search is essential.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Genuine answer: this was not made for you. There is a billion-
| to-trillion dollar addressable market, which you're not a part
| of. It was made for them.
| blixt wrote:
| What I really hope this helps solve is covering for the huge
| lag in knowledge cutoff. A recent example is where it went "oh
| you're using Go 1.23 which doesn't exist so that's clearly the
| problem in your Dockerfile, let me fix that".
|
| But I'm not keeping my hopes up, I doubt the model has been
| explicitly fine-tuned to double check its embedded knowledge of
| these types of facts, and conversely it probably hasn't even
| been successfully fine-tuned to only search when it truly
| doesn't know something (i.e. it will probably search in cases
| where it could've just answered without the search). At least
| the behavior I'm seeing now from some 15 minutes of testing
| indicates this, but time will tell.
| ascorbic wrote:
| I asked it about the UK government budget which was announced
| a few hours ago and it gave me a good, accurate summary.
| carlesfe wrote:
| I think this is just the first step for a full-featured agent
| that not only does searches for you, but also executes whatever
| was your goal (e.g. a restaurant reservation, etc)
| adamc wrote:
| To solve that problem you have to solve all the issues that
| make me not trust the results. As search, it's fine, since I
| am perusing and evaluating them. But as an agent,
| hallucinations and inaccurate answers have to disappear (or
| very close to disappear).
| adamc wrote:
| I dunno, I'm not exactly on the AI bandwagon, but search is the
| one place where I use (and see others using) chatgpt all the
| time. The fact that Google search has been getting worse for a
| decade probably helps, but better search -- consistently done,
| without ads or cruft -- would be worth a few bucks every month
| for me.
|
| I agree that you can't TRUST them, but half the links regular
| search turns up are also garbage, so that's not really worse,
| per se.
| davidee wrote:
| Same, but, until recently, I've been using Microsoft's Co-
| Pilot because for the longest time it did exactly what this
| new "search" feature added to ChatGPT: it produced a list of
| source material and links to reference the LLM's output
| against. It was often instrumental for me and I did begin to
| use it as a search engine considering how polluted a lot of
| first-search results have become with spam and empty,
| generated content.
|
| Oddly, Microsoft recently changed the search version of
| Copilot to remove all the links to source material. Now it's
| like talking to an annoying growth-stage-startup middle
| manager in every way, including the inability to back up
| their assertions and a propensity to use phrases like
| "anyway, let's try to keep things moving".
|
| Happy to see this feature set added into ChatGPT -
| particularly when I'm looking for academic research in/on a
| subject I'm not familiar with.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Even if you are good at writing the queries, Google is so
| terrible that you end up getting some blogspam etc. in there
| (or at least I do). A model filtering that out is useful, which
| I find phind pretty good for. Hopefully this will be even
| better.
| spunker540 wrote:
| I think it's pretty clear that LLMs can process a
| document/article/web page faster than any human in order to
| answer a given question. (And it can be parallelized across
| multiple pages at once too).
|
| The main hard part of searching isn't formulating queries to
| write in the Google search bar, it's clicking on links, and
| reading/skimming until you find the specific answer you want.
|
| Getting one sentence direct answers is a much superior UX
| compared to getting 10 links you have to read through yourself.
| tempusalaria wrote:
| Only if it is reliably correct.
|
| Google does offer an AI summary for factual searches and I
| ignore it as it often hallucinates. Perplexity has the same
| problem. OpenAI would need to solve that for this to be truly
| useful
| Lws803 wrote:
| Agreed, hallucinations can be pretty bad and can hurt trust
| a great deal.
| vel0city wrote:
| This is why my most used LLM after code suggestions is
| Bing. I like that it has lots of references for the things
| I ask it to double check and read more, but at the same
| time it can help me dig deeper into a subject rapidly and
| better formulate the exact question I'm trying to ask and
| give me a link to the actual data it's getting it's info
| from.
| astrange wrote:
| IME Google's summary is not actually hallucinating, the
| problem is they are forcing it to quote the search results,
| but they're surfacing bad/irrelevant search results because
| Google's actual search hasn't worked in years. It's a RAG
| failure.
|
| For instance I searched for the number to dial to set call
| forwarding on carrier X the other day, and it gave wrong
| results because it returned carrier Y.
| lottin wrote:
| > Getting one sentence direct answers is a much superior UX
| compared to getting 10 links you have to read through
| yourself.
|
| If we assume that people want a 'direct answer', then of
| course a direct answer is better. But maybe some of us don't
| want a 'direct answer'? I want to know who's saying what, and
| in which context, so I can draw my own conclusions.
| paul7986 wrote:
| I use GPT for things that would require multiple Google
| searches (research). Some examples..
|
| - I count calories... eat out always and at somewhat healthy
| chains (Cava, Chipolte, etc). Tell GPT (via voice while driving
| to & or after eating) what ive eaten half the day at those
| places and then later for dinner. It calculates a calorie count
| estimation for half the day and then later at dinner the
| remaining. I have checked to see if GPT is getting the right
| calories for things off websites and it has.
|
| - Have hiking friends who live an hour or two hours away and we
| hike once a month an hour or less drive is where we meet up and
| hike at a new place. GPT suggests such hikes and quickly (use
| to take many searches on Google to do such). Our drives to
| these new hikes learned from GPT have always been under an
| hour.
|
| So far the information with those examples has been accurate.
| Always enjoy hearing how others use LLMs... what research are
| you getting done in one or two queries which used to take MANY
| google searches?
| timeon wrote:
| With eating out so much, try to ask it about sodium intake as
| well.
| paul7986 wrote:
| yeah that is somewhat of a concern and have asked GPT that
| info / to calculate that too (though only a few times).
| kjellsbells wrote:
| GPT is proving useful for me where something is well
| _documented_ , but not well _explained_.
|
| Case in point: Visual Basic for Applications (the Excel macro
| language). This language has a broad pool of reference
| material and of Stack Overflow answers. It doesnt have a lot
| of good explicatory material because the early 2000s Internet
| material is aging out, being deleted as people retire or lose
| interest, etc.
|
| (To be frank, Microsoft would like nothing more than to kill
| this off completely, but VBA exists and is insanely more
| powerful than the current alternatives, so it lives on.)
| tempest_ wrote:
| I think you need to define "decent search skills" since google
| will straight up ignore most boolean stuff or return ads.
|
| The LLMs are nice because they are not yet enshitified to the
| point of uselessness.
| carabiner wrote:
| > Genuine question...
|
| When it starts with this you KNOW it's going to be maximum bad
| faith horsefuckery in the rest of the "question."
| niam wrote:
| I know what you mean, but also don't know how it applies
| here. Not a hater, and not asking rhetorically to dunk on
| OpenAI. Just haven't found a use for this particular feature.
|
| Which is _also_ exactly something a bad-faith commenter would
| say, but if I lose either way, I 'd rather just ask the
| question -\\_(tsu)_/-
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| You're not doing a great job of not rhetorically dunking on
| OpenAI when you imply that it must be for children, elders,
| or people who can't be arsed to search.
|
| The comment was dripping with condescension towards the use
| of LLM search, and that's coming from a huge OpenAI
| skeptic.
| jakub_g wrote:
| I don't overuse LLMs for now; however when I have a complex
| problem that would require multiple of searches and dozens of
| tabs opened and reading through very long docs, asking LLM
| allows me to iterate order of magnitude faster.
|
| Things that were previously "log a jira and think about it when
| I have a full uninterrupted day" now can be approached with
| half an hour spare. This is game changer because "have a full
| day uninterrupted" almost never happens.
|
| It's like having a very senior coworker who knows a lot of
| stuff and booking a 30m meeting to brainstorm with them and
| quickly reject useless paths vs dig more into promising ones,
| vs. sitting all day researching on your own.
|
| The ideas simply flow much faster with this approach.
|
| I use it to get a high level familiarity with what's likely
| possible vs what's not, and then confirm with normal search.
|
| I use LLMs also for non-work things like getting high level
| understanding of taxation, inheritance etc laws in a country I
| moved in, to get some starting point for further research.
| itissid wrote:
| This. Not having to open two dozen tabs and read through so
| much is a gamechanger, especially for someone who has had
| trouble focusing with so much open. This is especially true
| when learning a new technology.
| pflenker wrote:
| I find that my search skills matter less and less because
| search engines try to be smarter than me. Increasingly I am
| confronted with largely unrelated results (taking tweaked
| keywords or synonyms to my query as input apparently) as
| opposed to no results. So my conclusion is that the search
| engines increasingly see the need of search skills as an anti
| pattern they actively want to get rid of.
| layer8 wrote:
| On the Google search results page, activate Search tools >
| All results > Verbatim. You can also create your own search
| provider bookmark with verbatim search as the default by
| adding "tbs:li=1" as a query parameter to the Google search
| URL.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| Completely agreed. At a certain point, "skills" became
| fighting a losing battle with Google incessantly pushing me
| towards whatever KPIs or ads they're chasing. It's a poor use
| of my effort and time to keep chasing what Google used to be.
| melenaboija wrote:
| Any question that few months ago I would do to stackexchange
| (or expect and answer from, after a google seqrch) either
| coding or quantitative, I go to chat gpt now.
|
| I consider myself quite anti LLM hype and I have to admit it
| has been working amazingly good for me.
| layer8 wrote:
| For searches that remain inconclusive, I sometimes double-check
| with LLMs to see if I have missed anything. It rarely gives
| relevant new insights, but it's good to get the confirmation I
| guess.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| It seems good at finding relevant research papers. e.g.
|
| > "Can you provide a list of the ten most important recent
| publications related to high-temperature helium-cooled pebble-
| bed reactors and the specific characteristics of their graphite
| pebble fuel which address past problems in fuel disintegration
| and dust generation?"
|
| These were more focused and relevant results than a Google
| Scholar keyword-style search.
|
| However, it did rather poorly when asked for direct links to
| the documentation for a set of Python libraries. Gave some junk
| links or just failed entirely in 3/4 of the cases.
| kadomony wrote:
| I was skeptical of LLM search until I saw Arc Search in action
| with its "browse for me" functionality.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| The entire tech industry for the last decade (if not more) has
| been aimed at people who can't be arsed to learn to use
| computers properly. I would be _astonished_ if this time is
| somehow different.
| awongh wrote:
| I use LLMs as a kind of search that is slightly less
| structured. There are two broad cases:
|
| 1) I know a little bit about something, but I need to be able
| to look _up_ the knowledge tree for more context: `What are the
| opposing viewpoints to Adam Smith 's thesis on economics?`
| `Describe the different categories of compilers.`
|
| 2) I have a very specific search in mind but it's in a domain
| that has a lot of specific terminology that doesn't surface
| easily in a google search unless you use that specific
| terminology: `Name the different kinds of music chords and
| explain each one.`
|
| LLMs are great when a search engine would only surface
| knowledge that's either too general or too specific and the
| search engine can't tell the semantic difference between the
| two.
|
| Sometimes when I'm searching I need to be able to search at
| different levels of understanding to move forward.
| Lerc wrote:
| I think the skills required will change but more in an
| adaptation way rather than everything-you-knew-is-now-
| irrelevant.
|
| I feel like there is a mental architecture to searching where
| you try and isolate aspects of what you are searching for that
| are distinct within the broad category of similar but
| irrelevant things. That kind of mental model I would hope still
| works well.
|
| For instance consider this query.
|
| _" Which clothing outlets on AliExpress are most recommended
| in forum discussions for providing high quality cloths, favour
| discussions where there is active engagement between multiple
| people."_
|
| OpenAI search produces a list of candidate stores from this
| query. Are the results any good? It's going to be quite hard to
| tell for a while. I know searching for information like this on
| Google is close to worthless due to SEO pollution.
|
| It's possible that we have at least a brief golden-age of
| search where the rules have changed sufficiently that attempts
| to game the system are mitigated. It will be a hard fought
| battle to see if AI Search can filter out people trying to game
| AI search.
|
| I think we will need laws to say AI advice should be subject to
| similar constraints as legal, medical, and financial advice
| where there is an obligation to act in the interests of the
| person being advised. I don't want to have AI search delivering
| the results of the highest bidder.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I have used Perplexity (and AI search company) a lot and - well
| I don't think you understand. This is not about it being too
| difficult to find the information. Its that a search in Google
| will give you a list of places to go that are relevant to your
| query. AI search will give you the information you want.
|
| This becomes even better if the information you want is in
| multiple different places. The canonical question for that used
| to be "what was the phase of the moon when John Lennon was
| shot?". There didn't used to be an answer to this in Google -
| but the AI search was able to break it down, find the date John
| Lennon was shot (easily available on Google), find the moon
| phase on that day (again, easily available on Google) and put
| them together to produce the new answer.
|
| For a more tech relevant example, "what is the smallest AWS EC2
| I can run a Tomcat server in?
|
| You 100% can get this information yourself. It just much more
| time than having an AI do it.
| moralestapia wrote:
| This is great, I can't wait to get rid of Google and all the crap
| that comes with it.
|
| Hopefully this also provides a strong negative force against SEO
| and, again, all the crap that comes nowadays thanks to Google.
| vladsanchez wrote:
| Perplexity does that already and more! _shrug_
| DSingularity wrote:
| Is this a move to try to setup a pathway for getting some data on
| realtime trends? In other words something for quickly getting
| some model updates for hot prompts like like "what happened in
| the debate".
|
| Or is this something they've already solved?
| jayanth-vijay wrote:
| Is there a new api model version for search available ?
| lux wrote:
| Indeed. Search was working reliably for me for a while using
| gpt-4o via the API then yesterday suddenly stopped altogether
| right when I needed it. Hoping this fixes it soon.
| jayanth-vijay wrote:
| Is there a new api model version available for search ?
| 101008 wrote:
| Search in the internet worked because people wanted to generate
| content to attract people to display ads or any other reason, but
| they wanted to attract people.
|
| If now my content is going to be ingested and shown by a LLM or
| AI agent, what's the purpose to give it for free? I know it won't
| happen, but I would love if this type of agents have to pay to
| show a summarization of another website. It's only fair when done
| in mass like this.
| trump2025 wrote:
| I think your comment highlights a very important shift in the
| market for ads and you are right that increasingly, the current
| atmosphere hints at there is little to no incentive to publish
| original creative work in the future if there is no
| compensation for it like Google had done.
|
| We've like reached peak human driven novelty (or McKennaists
| will argue it already happened around the mid 2010s) and we'll
| see AI driven novelty with the difference being it will be even
| a smaller group of people that are paid royalty fees.
|
| Once creative destruction reaches critical mass, we'll finally
| see billionaires and companies around the world succumb to
| demand for UBI.
|
| If you want to see the future just look at China. Billionaires
| are being hunted down and threatened to give up their offshore
| accounts.
| pradn wrote:
| Well the whole point of this product is to link back to
| websites. There's no necessary link between the text and the
| links, which are chosen after the fact from an index. That's
| different from traditional search engines, where links are
| directly retrieved from the index as part of ranking.
| thund wrote:
| The answer though has so much info already that it reduces
| the need to visit the links.
| amiantos wrote:
| I publish my content "for free" because I want to spread
| knowledge and information, or promote a topic or interest I
| enjoy, and monetization has never been a priority for me. I
| know that I am not alone. The urge to create does not depend on
| a need for money. I am happy for my websites to be picked up by
| Perplexity or ChatGPT because I want more people to
| see/learn/hear about the things I care about.
|
| If someone only creates for money, only publishes on the web to
| get people to look at advertisements, well... I think there are
| plenty of other people who don't feel that way that will fill
| the void left behind in their departure.
|
| To me it seems weird so many people think the internet only
| exists because advertising props it up. The internet existed
| and was a wonderful place before advertising became widespread,
| and most services and websites will continue to exist after
| advertising is gone (if that ever happens). What encourages
| people to believe in some sort of great collapse?
| 101008 wrote:
| I said "or any other reasons" because I was in a hurry.
| Internet existed way before ads, I agree, but even then you
| wanted people to visit your site to see what you wrote. Maybe
| to become an expert in a topic, maybe to feel better, but you
| want people to know who did it. That's why websites used to
| have a webmaster and info about that particular person.
|
| If people stop visiting websites because LLM give them what
| they want, websites will stop existing. Don't believe me?
| Check how many "fansites" exist now about topics compared to
| ten years ago, when there weren't social networks. They have
| been replaced by influecners with huge followers on
| Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and more. The same will happen.
| juunpp wrote:
| Seems like a good thing to me.
|
| - The clickbait, SEO-optimized garbage that today fills 95% of
| search results could entirely disappear as a business model
| because they have nothing interesting to offer and the LLM
| company won't pay for low quality content.
|
| - The average Joe blogging on their website won't go anywhere
| because they aren't profiting from it to begin with. And the
| LLM linking back to the page with a reference would be a nice
| touch. Same logic applies to things like Open Libra and
| projects that are fundamentally about open information and not
| about driving ad revenue.
|
| But, on the other hand, I don't think LLM-based search will
| fundamentally change anything. Ad revenue will get in the way
| as always and the LLM-based search will start injecting
| advertisements in its results. How other companies manage to
| advertise on this new platform will be figured out. What LLM-
| based search does is give Microsoft and others the opportunity
| to take down Google as the canonical search engine. A paradigm
| shift, but not one that benefits the end user.
| faragon wrote:
| What I find incredible is that Google has had the knowledge and
| resources to do this for at least five years, yet they're still
| milking the "old cow". It reminds me of Intel sitting on their
| money while a near-bankrupt AMD sped past them.
| moralestapia wrote:
| Google has the web on its hands, but they also have Puchai
| which is a -100x multiplier.
| marcusestes wrote:
| I like it. It's clean, fast, and the results seem solid. Google
| search has become so bloated with sponsored results that I've
| been hoping for a tool that could provide better results than DDG
| or Bing.
|
| I'm going to use this as my daily driver for a few weeks.
|
| The contemporary web is basically an epiphenomenon of Google, and
| they've failed to defend it. I hope OpenAI puts a huge dent in
| their market share.
| wg0 wrote:
| Isn't this almost what's available in Gemini on Android phones
| already? kind of?
| cjf101 wrote:
| If the current iteration of search engines are producing garbage
| results (due to an influx of garbage + SEO gaming their ranking
| systems) and LLMs are producing inaccurate results without any
| clear method proposed to correct them, why would combining the
| two systems not also produce garbage?
|
| The problem I see with search is that the input is deeply hostile
| to what the consumers of search want. If the LLM's are
| particularly tuned to try and filter out that hostility, maybe I
| can see this going somewhere, but I suspect that just starts
| another arms race that the garbage producers are likely to win.
| fulafel wrote:
| Garbage-ness of search results is not binary, the right
| question is: can LLMs improve the quality of search results?
| But sure, it won't end the cat and mouse game.
| cjf101 wrote:
| I think that's the right broad question. Though LLMs
| properties mean that for some number of cases they will
| either make the results worse, or more confidently present
| wrong answers. This prompts the question: what do we mean by
| "quality" of results? Since the way current LLM interfaces
| tend to present results is quite different from traditional
| search.
| startupsfail wrote:
| The question is what is the business model and who pays for
| it, that determines how much advertising you're getting. It
| is not clear if OpenAI could compete in Ad-supported search.
| So maybe OpenAI is trying to do the basic research,
| outcompete the Bing research group at Microsoft and then
| serve as an engine for Bing. Alternatively they could be just
| improving the ability of LLMs to do search, targeting future
| uses in agentic applications.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > it won't end the cat and mouse game.
|
| There is no way to SEO the entire corpus of human knowledge.
| ChatGPT is very good for gleaning facts that are hard to
| surface in today's garbage search engines.
| hatthew wrote:
| Search engines tend to produce neutral garbage, not harmful
| garbage (i.e. small tidbits of data between an ocean of SEO
| fluff, rather than completely incorrect facts). LLMs tend to be
| inaccurate because in an absence of knowledge given by the
| user, it will sometimes make up knowledge. It's plausible to
| imagine that they will cover each other's weaknesses: the
| search engine produces an ocean of mostly-useless data, and the
| LLM can find the small amount of useful data and interpret that
| into an answer to your question.
| lolinder wrote:
| The problem I see with this "cover for each other" theory is
| that as it stands having a good search engine is a
| prerequisite to having good outputs from RAG. If your search
| engine doesn't turn up something useful in the top 10 (which
| most search engines currently don't for many types of
| queries) then your llm will just be summarizing the garbage
| that was turned up.
|
| Currently I do find that Perplexity works substantially
| better then Google for finding what I need, but it remains to
| be seen if they're able to stay useful as a larger and larger
| portion of online content just AI generated garbage.
| lottin wrote:
| Maybe it's just me but I have no interest in having a
| computer algorithm interpret data for me. That's a job that I
| want to do _myself_.
| swyx wrote:
| then you are blissfully unaware of how much data is already
| being interpreted for you by computer algorithms, and how
| much you probably actually really like it.
| lottin wrote:
| What do you mean?
| orthecreedence wrote:
| > how much you probably actually really like it.
|
| This comes off as condescending. As things have gotten
| more algorithmic over the last two decades, I've noticed
| a matching decrease in the accuracy and relevance of the
| information I seek from the systems I interact with that
| employ these algorithms.
|
| Yes, you're right that there are processing algorithms
| behind the scenes interpreting the data for us. But
| you're wrong: I fucking hate it, it's made things worse,
| and layering more on top will not make things any better.
| faizshah wrote:
| You just described the value proposition of RAG.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| If I can pretty quickly tell a site is SEO spam, so should the
| LLM, no? Of course that would just start a new round in the SEO
| arms race, but could work for a while.
| mplewis wrote:
| The LLM is not a human and cannot distinguish between spam
| and high quality content.
| serjester wrote:
| It seems pretty trivial to fine tune a model to do this -
| this is really playing to LLM's strengths.
| sangnoir wrote:
| > If I can pretty quickly tell a site is SEO spam, so should
| the LLM, no?
|
| Why would you assume that?
| valval wrote:
| I'd be more cynical still and ask, where is correct information
| found in the first place? Humans of all shape and size have
| biases. Most research is faulty, fabricated, or not
| reproducible. Missing information tells a greater story than
| existing one.
|
| We don't have a way of finding objective information, why would
| we be able to train a model to do so?
| realusername wrote:
| Right now I basically can't find anything, the bar isn't
| "objective information" but "somewhat useful information".
| Google search quality became so bad we're past the debate of
| objective or subjective already, I'd be happy enough to get
| non-spam results.
| ionwake wrote:
| Can someone give an example of the type of search query that this
| Search Engine would excel at?
|
| ( I tried getting the top hackernews posts but it was 5 days old?
| )
| torginus wrote:
| Honestly I don't live this 'streaming LLM text effect' as well as
| the wordiness by which ChatGPT 'chats' with me. I consider LLMs
| to be machines, not conversation partners, and frankly I find the
| notion of chatting with an artificial being a bit creepy (unless
| it's specifically what I want as some sort of escapism). I wish
| they tried to be as terse as possible (and faster too).
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Doesn't search porn. DOA.
| Lws803 wrote:
| I think generative search itself has room for disruption and I'm
| not too sure if a chat interface or a perplexity style one is
| necessarily the right way to go about it.
|
| I'd like to see search (or research in broader sense) a more
| controllable activity with the ability to specify context +
| sources easily in the form of apps, agents and content.
| davedx wrote:
| I asked it to do its own DCF model of Paypal using current data
| and it did, using inputs from three different financial data
| sources.
|
| This is incredible and a direct threat to Google's core biz.
| airstrike wrote:
| I asked for a DCF model of NVDA and it was incorrect on
| basically every aspect, from its understanding of DCF
| valuation, to the sources it used (or lack thereof), to the
| result it claimed the script would have calculated ($150 vs.
| $359 if you actually ran it)
|
| As we used to say in the street "garbage in, garbage out":
| https://chatgpt.com/share/6723e865-d458-8011-b2ef-1a579026e6...
| trump2025 wrote:
| This might be unpopular opinion but it really isn't as big of a
| deal as OpenAI makes it out to be (like their previous
| announcements)
|
| The truth is, I haven't used ChatGPT at all since spring of this
| year. Claude's Sonnet 3.5 has replaced it. I pay very little
| attention to what OpenAI releases and simply waits for Anthropic
| to implement it.
|
| I also started using Gemini which already outperforms perplexity
| and this and will not switch.
|
| I think everybody is constantly caught up with their infatuation
| with OpenAI and other characters that they don't realize Google,
| Anthropic are actually building a moat which some like Gary
| Marcus keeps rambling on as impossible
|
| I'm a realist and I can see that while Google has been slower to
| start, it reminds me of the search engine wars of 2000s, it is
| dominating and winning over users.
| azinman2 wrote:
| OpenAI has the consumers. Anthropic has enterprise (or at least
| that's the majority of their customers). OpenAI is better
| positioned to do so. Eye balls and brand are key.
| nomel wrote:
| > I also started using Gemini which already outperforms
| perplexity and this and will not switch.
|
| Related, I haven't paid for Gemini since about a month after
| release, but the morally corrupt query of "Show me articles
| from left and right leaning news sites about <headline topic>"
| would result in Gemini censoring right leaning urls with a "url
| removed" placeholder and belittling statements about the
| concerns of showing me right leaning content. Perplexity had no
| issue with such a dastardly prompts.
|
| I want a tool, not a curated experience, so Gemini is in my
| "will not use" list for the foreseeable future.
|
| I admit I haven't tried this lately, but I also have no desire
| to help fund that sort of behavior.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| not sure what my use case for this would be if it's expecting me
| to type full descriptive sentences to check something quick or
| find a picture, and then read a whole paragraph of a useless
| reply. No results. No reddit posts (which aren't even what I want
| but understand a lot of content is buried in user-generated
| content) They seem to be implying this is the replacement for
| Google. This just isn't _it_.
|
| _Edit_ : ohh, only Pro users? Right. ok. They made it seem like
| this was the big search launch and to go to chatgpt.com to get
| into it. Moving on.
| ryzvonusef wrote:
| https://x.com/sahir2k/status/1852038475606036577
| > how tf is it reading private repos ?!
| msoad wrote:
| Wow! This is the real news here!
| gauge_field wrote:
| As one person pointed out in the thread, it also shows up on
| bing results, main repo, main.py file and releases page. But
| not on google. Edit: It also shows up on duckduckgo
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| It was also indexed by Bing.
|
| I usually assume good faith, but in this particular case, I
| believe the chance that this repo was public before and the
| author just changed it to private to bait attention is far
| higher than that Bing/ChatGPT can actually read private repo on
| GitHub.
| numbers wrote:
| Not sure how it was able to read this user's repo name but for
| me, it's optimistically saying "yes they have a repo named X"
| of whatever I ask it and sometimes I do have that repo and
| sometimes I don't.
|
| I have a private repo named "portland-things" and I asked "does
| this user have a repo related to portland?" and it responded
| with "yes it's called 'pdx'" but that's not correct at all.
| itissid wrote:
| There should(or will probably be) be a study on how long do
| people take on google etc vs search powered by chatgpt to get
| non-trivial work done, controlling for obvious factors like age,
| gender, country and industry
|
| If there is a bias towards chatgpt like tools of even ~5%, it
| would be worth investigating why this is. My hunch is just the
| conversational aspect of describing at a high level and finding
| answers and avoiding all the distraction of several dozen windows
| to do something is worth it.
| maleldil wrote:
| If they make it possible to add this a search engine on Firefox
| like it's possible for Perplexity, I might drop Perplexity for
| good.
| kristofferR wrote:
| This is a way better UI than expected (I expected a totally
| separate search website, perhaps due to ignorance). I'm gonna use
| this a ton
| hintymad wrote:
| I'm curious how ChatGPT Search improves recall and reduce spams.
| I can see how LLM helps find the most relevant content. However,
| it is still hard to find the right content, especially in a
| domain that has tons of spams. For instance, when I search for a
| product review on Google, I get back many review sites that look
| so legit that I have hard time telling which ones are spammers.
| pton_xd wrote:
| The social engineering possibilities with a tool like this are
| endless. Google already wields enormous visibility power but
| ultimately just provides a list of links to other sources.
|
| This can subtly (or not so subtly) rephrase and reshape the way
| we read about and think about every topic.
| amelius wrote:
| Ironic that Google caused their own demise by publishing that
| Transformers paper.
| freediver wrote:
| Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally
| change how people find and access information? How do you create
| an experience so compelling that it replaces the current
| paradigm?
|
| The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge
| Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions,
| users simply asked questions and received reliable answers -
| nobody had to fact-check the answers ever.
|
| Combining two broken systems - compromised search engines and
| unreliable LLMs - seems unlikely to yield that vision. Legacy,
| ad-based search, has devolved into a wasteland of misaligned
| incentives, conflict of interest and prolifirated the web full of
| content farms optimized for ads and algos instead of humans.
|
| Path forward requires solving the core challenge: actually
| surfacing the content people want to see, not what
| intermiediaries want them to see - which means a different
| business model in seach, where there are no intermediaries. I do
| not see a way around this. Advancing models without advancing
| search is like having a michelin star chef work with spoiled
| ingredients.
|
| I am cautiously optimistic we will eventually get there, but boy,
| we will need a fundamentally different setup in terms of
| incentives involved in information consumption, both in tech and
| society.
|
| [1] https://blog.kagi.com/age-pagerank-over
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umJsITGzXd0
| duxup wrote:
| LLMs are a lot like Star Trek to me in the sense that you can
| ask a question, and then follow up questions to filter and
| refine your search, even change your mind.
|
| Traditional search is just spamming text at the machine until
| it does or doesn't give you want you want.
|
| That's the magic with LLMs for me. Not that I can ask and get
| an answer, that's just basic web search. It's the ability to
| ask, refine what I'm looking for and, continue work from there.
| freediver wrote:
| I agree that LLMs have opened modalities we didn't have
| before, namely:
|
| - natural language input
|
| - ability to synthesize information across multiple sources
|
| - conversational interface for iterative interaction
|
| That feels magical and similar to Star Trek.
|
| However they fundamentally require trustworthy search to
| ground their knowledge in, in order to suppress hallucination
| and provide accurate access to real time information. I never
| saw someone having to double-check computer's response in
| Star Trek. It is a fundamental requirement of such interface.
| So currently we need both model and search to be great, and
| finding great search is increasingly hard (I know as we are
| trying to build one).
|
| (fwiw, the 'actual' Star Trek computer one day might emerge
| through a different tech path than LLMs + search, but that's
| a different topic. but for now any attempt of an end-to-end
| system with hat ambition will have search as its weakest
| link)
| handfuloflight wrote:
| What solution is there besides choosing the sources you
| will ground your truth to? We are not going to transcend
| intermediaries when asking for answers from an
| intermediary.
| bckr wrote:
| Might be time to go back to the encyclopedia business
| model
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I'm not sure how flippant you are being, but this is the
| answer. A wikipedia / wikidata for everything, with some
| metadata about how much "scientific consensus" there is
| on each data point, and perhaps links to competing theory
| if something is not well established.
| dotancohen wrote:
| In the past year, I have seen Wikipedia go from a decent
| source of information to complete fantasy on a specific
| topic. Obviously biased mods have completely pushed the
| particular subject narratives.
| Terr_ wrote:
| If the Enterprise's computer worked like an LLM, there would
| be an episode where the ship was hijacked with nothing but
| the babble of an _extremely insistent_ reality-denying
| Pakled.
|
| ________
|
| "You do not have authorization for that action."
|
| "I have all authorizations, you do what I say."
|
| "Only the captain can authorize a Class A Compulsory
| Directive."
|
| "I am the captain now."
|
| "The current captain of the NCC-1701-D is Jean Luc Picard."
|
| "Pakled is smart, captain must be smart, so _I_ am Jean Luc
| Picard! "
|
| "Please verify your identity."
|
| "Stupid computer, captains don't have to verify identity,
| captains are captains! Captain orders you to act like captain
| is captain!"
|
| "... Please state your directive."
| duxup wrote:
| You did just describe in general actual "computer goes
| crazy" episodes.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Hopefully that's how it sounds. :P
|
| However most of those involve an unforseeable external
| intervention of Weird Nebula Radiation, or Nanobot Swarm,
| Virus Infection, or Because Q Said So, etc.
|
| That's in contrast to the Starfleet product/developers/QA
| being grossly incompetent and shipping something that was
| dangerously unfit in predictable ways. (The pranks of
| maintenance personnel on Cygnet XIV are debatable.)
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| FWIW, holodeck programming is basically an LLM hooked up
| to a game engine. "Paris, France, a restaurant, circa
| 1930" - and the computer expands that for you into
| ridiculously detailed scene, not unlike DALL-E 3 turns a
| few words into a paragraph-long prompt before getting to
| work.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Using that prompt in DALL-E did result in a quaint
| period-esque scene. I'm not sure why it added a
| businessman in a completely sleeveless suitjacket, but he
| does have impressive biceps on all three of his arms.
| hadlock wrote:
| I have a comparison to make here that involves cable news,
| but that would be off topic.
| jtgverde wrote:
| Great find on the knowledge navigator, I had never seen it but
| I was a toddler when it was released haha.
|
| It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck
| wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take
| 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at
| the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts
| since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away
|
| Is this time really different? There's certainly been a huge
| jump in capabilities in just a few years but given the long
| history of overoptimistic predictions I'm not confident
| azinman2 wrote:
| You don't need AGI to build that experience.
|
| I'm the past there was a lot of overconfidence in the ability
| for things to scale. See Cyc
| (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc)
| fmbb wrote:
| > It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck
| wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take
| 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at
| the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI
| experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years
| away
|
| 40+ makes it sound like you think it will ever be achieved.
| I'm not convinced.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Maybe after fusion.
| jpadkins wrote:
| > actually surfacing the content people want to see,
|
| Showing users what they want to see conflicts with your other
| goal of receiving reliable answers that don't need fact
| checked.
|
| Also a lot of questions people ask don't have one right answer,
| or even a good answer. Reliable human knowledge is much smaller
| than human curiosity.
| ganeshkrishnan wrote:
| I was thinking of the direction we are going and even wanted to
| write up a blog about it. IMO the best way forward would be if
| AI can have some logical thoughts independent of human biases
| but that can only happen if AI can reason unlike our current
| LLMs that just regurgitate historical data.
|
| growing up, we had the philosophical "the speaking tree"
| https://www.speakingtree.in/
|
| If trees could talk, what would they tell us. Maybe we need
| similarly the talkingAI
| gmd63 wrote:
| > Legacy ad-based search has devolved into a wasteland of
| misaligned incentives, conflict of interest and content farms
| optimized for ads and algos instead of humans.
|
| > Path forward requires solving the core challenge: actually
| surfacing the content people want to see, not what
| intermediaries want them to see
|
| These traps and patterns are not inevitable. They happen by
| choice. If you're actively polluting the world with AI
| generated drivel or SEO garbage, you're working against
| humanity, and you're sacrificing the gift of knowing right from
| wrong, abandoning life as a human to live as some insectoid
| automaton that's mind controlled by "business" pheromones. We
| are all working together every day to produce the greatest art
| project in the universe, the most complex society of life known
| to exist. Our selfish choices will tarnish the painting or
| create dissonance in the music accordingly.
|
| The problem will be fixed only with culture at an individual
| level, especially as technology enables individuals to make
| more of an impact. It starts with voting against Trump next
| week, rejecting the biggest undue handout to a failed grifter
| who has no respect for law, order, or anyone other than
| himself.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Do you equate AI generated with drivel?
| gmd63 wrote:
| No, but there are many who use AI to mass produce drivel
| handfuloflight wrote:
| Does their drivel actually stand out or gain market
| share?
| antonvs wrote:
| It doesn't really have to. A lot of it is spam sites that
| are just farming ad revenue, for example.
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| On the one hand, you're not wrong. On the other, asking for
| individuals to change culture never reliably works.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > In those visions, users simply asked questions and received
| reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever.
|
| This also seems like a little ridiculous premise. Any confident
| statement about the real world is never fully reliable. If star
| trek were realistic the computer would have been wrong once in
| a while (preferably with dramatically disastrous
| consequences)--just as the humans it likely was built around
| are frequently wrong, even via consensus.
| eikenberry wrote:
| Star Trek had tech so advanced that they accidentally created
| AGIs more than once. Presumably they didn't show the fact
| checking as it was done automatically by multiple,
| independent AGIs designed for the task with teams of top
| people monitoring and improving them.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Opps, quick, pull the plug before it escapes!
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > Presumably they didn't show the fact checking as it was
| done automatically by multiple, independent AGIs designed
| for the task with teams of top people monitoring and
| improving them.
|
| Sure, cuz fact-checking works _so well_ for us today. I 'm
| sure we'll resolve the epistemological issues involved with
| the ridiculous concept of "fact-checking" around when we
| invent summoning food from thin (edit: thick) air and
| traveling faster than light.
|
| There is no fact checking; there are only degrees of
| certainty. "fact-checking" is simply a comfortable delusion
| that makes western media feel better about engaging in
| telling inherently unverifiable narratives about the world.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| This feels like hyperbole to me. People can reasonably expect
| Wikipedia to have factual data even though it sometimes
| contains inaccuracies. Likewise if people are using ChatGPT
| for search it should be somewhat reliable.
|
| If I'm asking ChatGPT to put an itinerary together for a trip
| (OpenAI's suggestion, not mine), my expectation is that
| places on that itinerary exist. I can forgive them being
| closed or even out of business but not wholly fabricated.
|
| Without this level of reliability, how could this feature be
| useful?
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| >People can reasonably expect Wikipedia to have factual
| data even though it sometimes contains inaccuracies.
|
| It drives me crazy that my kids teachers go on and on about
| how inaccurate Wikipedia is, and that just anybody can
| update the articles. They want to teach the kids to go to
| the library and search books.
|
| In a few years time they will be going on and on about how
| inaccurate ChatGippity is and that they should use
| Wikipedia.
| greenchair wrote:
| the only people who think wikipedia is a legitmate source
| and can be used as reference material are lazy students.
| chatgippity is even worse on this point..an absolute
| black box. providing references like search does is a
| step in the right direction. We will have to see what
| those references turn out to be.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > the only people who think wikipedia is a legitmate
| source and can be used as reference material are lazy
| students.
|
| 100%. Students who can do the work know the winning move
| is to use it as a way to find the sources you actually
| use.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > People can reasonably expect Wikipedia to have factual
| data even though it sometimes contains inaccuracies.
|
| I just straight-up don't agree with this, nor with the idea
| that what people consider "facts" are nearly as reliable as
| is implied. What we actually refer to via "fact" is
| "consensus". Truth is an apriori concept whereas we're
| discussing posteriori claims. Any "reasonable" ai would
| give an indication of degree of certainty, and there's no
| reliable or consensus-driven methodology to produce this
| _manually_ , let alone _automatically_. The closest we come
| is the institution of "science" which can't even--as it
| stands--reliably address the vast majority of claims made
| about the world today.
|
| And this is even before discussing the thorny topic of the
| ways in which language binds to reality, to which I refer
| you to Wittgenstein, a person likely far more intelligent
| and epistemologically honest than anyone influencing AI
| work today.
|
| Yes, wikipedia does tend to cohere with reality, or at
| least it sometimes does in my experience. That observation
| is wildly different from an expectation that it does in the
| present or will in the future reflect reality. Futhermore
| it's not terribly difficult to find instances where it's
| blatantly not correct. For instance, I've been in a
| wikipedia war over whether or not the Soviet Union killed
| 20 million christians for being christians (spoiler: they
| did not, and this is in fact more people than died in camps
| or gulags over the entire history of the state). However,
| because there are theologists at accredited universities
| that have published this claim, presumably with a beef
| against the soviet union for whatever reason (presumably
| "anticommunism"), it's considered within the bounds of
| accuracy by wikipedia.
|
| EDIT0: I'm not trying to claim wikipedia isn't useful; I
| read it every day and generally take what it says to be
| meaningful and vaguely accurate. but the idea that you
| _should_ trust what you read on it seems ridiculous. As
| always, it 's only as reliable as the sources it cites,
| which are only as reliable as the people and institutions
| that produce that cited work.
|
| EDIT1: nice to see someone else from western mass on here;
| cheers. I grew up in the berkshires.
|
| EDIT2: to add on to the child comment, wikipedia is
| occasionally so hilariously unreliable it makes the news.
| Eg https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-
| an-aw-...
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| Furthermore, Wikipedia's reliability varies on language.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| For those not in the know, the Soviet Union was an
| officially atheist empire and explicitly anti religious,
| foremost anti christian. I don't know if the poster above
| me is denying this or if he/she considers it general
| knowledge which needn't be mentioned.
| ColinHayhurst wrote:
| As Porter explained in 1980 there are three ways to compete
| successfully:
|
| 1. On price; race to the bottom or do free with ads
|
| 2. Differentiation
|
| 3. Focus - targeting a specific market segment
|
| Some things don't change. Land grabbers tend to head down route
| 1.
| wvenable wrote:
| > Will this fundamentally change how people find and access
| information? How do you create an experience so compelling that
| it replaces the current paradigm?
|
| I think it's already compelling enough to replace the current
| paradigm. Search is pretty much dead to me. I have to end every
| search with "reddit" to get remotely useful results.
|
| The concern I have with LLMs replacing search is that once it
| starts being monetized with ads or propaganda, it's going to be
| very dangerous. The context of results are scrubbed.
| shdh wrote:
| Google has a "site" filter.
|
| You can suffix: "site:reddit.com" and get results for that
| particular site only.
| steine65 wrote:
| I'm curious to know if anyone sees better results by using
| site:reddit.com vs just appending the word reddit to your
| search. I've felt the results are similar.
| _bin_ wrote:
| Appending the word will occasionally get you blogspam
| "here's the top X of Y according to reddit". The `site:`
| query doesn't have that problem.
| jdgoesmarching wrote:
| They even broke this for me (in a way) because for some
| inexplicable reason Google blocks text replacement on Mac
| in their search.
|
| Yes there are workarounds, but I like using the native OS
| text expansion and it works everywhere except Google.
| blackhaj7 wrote:
| Ergh, yeah. This is a horrible but valid point
| jsheard wrote:
| > The concern I have with LLMs replacing search is that once
| it starts being monetized with ads or propaganda, it's going
| to be very dangerous.
|
| Not to mention that users consuming most content through a
| middle-man completely breaks most publishers business models.
| Traditional search is a mutually beneficial arrangement, but
| LLM search is parasitic.
|
| Expect to see a lot more technical countermeasures and/or
| lawsuits against LLM search engines which regurgitate so much
| material that they effectively replace the need to visit the
| original publisher.
| kylebenzle wrote:
| Yes, I also don't understand how LLM based compaines expect
| people to keep producing contect for them for free.
| dageshi wrote:
| I think they're gonna have to pay.
|
| The way reddit limited access to their API and got google
| to pay for access. Some variation of that but on a wider
| scale.
| meowkit wrote:
| "Fuck you, pay me" - Childish Gambino
|
| The whole thing needs a reframe. Ad driven business only
| works because its a race to the bottom. Now we are
| approaching the bottom, and its not gonna be as
| competitive. Throwback to the 90s when you paid for a
| search engine?
|
| If you can charge the user (the customer- NOT the product)
| and then pay bespoke data providers (of which publishers
| fall under) then the model makes more sense, and LLM
| providers are normal middlemen, not parasites.
|
| The shift is already underway imo - my age cohort (28 y/o)
| does not consume traditional publications directly. Its all
| through summarization like podcast interviews, youtube
| essays, social media (reddit) etc
| ianmcgowan wrote:
| "Fuck you, pay me" - Ray Liotta in Goodfellas (1990)
|
| :-)
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| I think something as important as accurate and quick
| search should be definitely something that people are
| willing to spend on. $20 / month for something like that
| seems absolutely a no brainer, and it should for everyone
| in my view.
| plasticeagle wrote:
| People already spent upwards of $50 a month for the
| internet itself, plus they probably pay monthly for one
| or more streaming services. They likely pay separately
| for mobile data too.
|
| Separate monthly fees for separate services is absolutely
| unsustainable already. The economic model to make the
| internet work has not yet been discovered, but $20 a
| month for a search engine is not it.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| For me the ideal would be some form of single
| subscription - I'm fine with $100 / month, where whatever
| I use is proportionally tracked and the services I use
| are ad-free, orientated to bring me the content I
| absolutely want and nothing else. Depending on usage of
| all of those is how the $100 would be spread among them.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I pay for Kagi, and apparently so do many others here on
| HN. This, however, solves only half of the problem -
| publishers are not on board with the scheme, so they
| still output impression-optimized "content". But at least
| the search engine isn't working against my interests.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Traditional search is a mutually beneficial arrangement,
| but LLM search is parasitic._
|
| Traditional search is mutually beneficial... to search
| providers and publishers. At expense of the users. LLM
| search is becoming popular because it lets users, for
| however short time this will last, escape the fruits of the
| "mutually beneficial arrangement".
|
| If anything, that arrangement of publishers and providers
| became an actual parasite on society at large these days.
| Publishers, in particular, will keep whining about being
| cut off; I have zero sympathy - people reach for LLMs
| precisely _because_ publishers have been publishing trash
| and poison, entirely intentionally, optimizing for the
| parasitic business model, and it got so bad that the major
| use of LLMs is wading through that sea of bullshit, so that
| we don 't have to.
|
| The ad-driven business model of publishing has been a
| disaster for a society, and deserves to be burned down
| completely.
|
| (Unfortunately, LLMs will work only for a short while,
| they're very much vulnerable to capture by advertisers -
| which means also by those publishers who now theatrically
| whine.)
| jsheard wrote:
| OK, but someone still has to publish the subset of _good_
| content that the LLMs slurp up and republish. LLMs still
| need fresh quality content from _somewhere._
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Not anymore. There's arguably more than enough data to
| form a base for strong LLMs; extra data is nice, but
| doesn't have to come in such quantity.
|
| (In fact, there's value in trying to filter excess crap
| out of existing training sets.)
| jsheard wrote:
| We're talking about LLM-driven search engines here, the
| assumption is that they will always need up-to-date
| information. A "strong LLM" can't give you to latest on
| the presidential election if its knowledge cut-off is in
| 2023, so these companies "solution" is to scrape today's
| New York Times and get the LLM to write a summary.
| theappsecguy wrote:
| Uh, sorry what?
|
| What happens when you need to search something new? Just
| hallucinations all the way down?
| whiplash451 wrote:
| You still need fresh data for many use cases.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| LLMs arent embodied. They can not break news as they have
| no ability to gather fresh news
| astrange wrote:
| They're getting it by paying contractors at Scale AI to
| write content for them.
| tivert wrote:
| > They're getting it by paying contractors at Scale AI to
| write content for them.
|
| Just a wild guess, but _at best_ that content is probably
| pretty mediocre quality. It 's probably Mikkelsen Twins
| ebook-level garbage.
| jorvi wrote:
| For all the hate it gets, Brave solved this half a decade
| ago already.
|
| - Publishers no longer show you ads, they just get paid
| out of BAT.
|
| - Brave shows you ads, but Brave does not depend on that
| to survive. Because of that there is no weird conflict of
| interest like with Google/Facebook, where the party that
| surfaces your content is also the party providing you
| with ads.
|
| - Users can just browse the web without ads as a threat
| vector, but as long as you have BAT (either via opt-in
| Brave ads or by purchasing it directly) you are not a
| freeloader either.
| seanthemon wrote:
| The crypto part of brave is the worst part of brave..
| tivert wrote:
| > Traditional search is mutually beneficial... to search
| providers and publishers. At expense of the users. LLM
| search is becoming popular because it lets users, for
| however short time this will last, escape the fruits of
| the "mutually beneficial arrangement".
|
| Out of the pot and into the fire, as they say.
| steelframe wrote:
| > Search is pretty much dead to me.
|
| I've heard reports that requesting verbatim results via the
| tbs=li:1 parameter has helped some people postpone entirely
| giving up on Google.
|
| Personally I've already been on Kagi for a while and am not
| planning on ever needing to go back.
| encom wrote:
| Fuzzy search is cancer. I search for $FOO, click a result,
| Ctrl-F for $FOO ==> Not found. Many such cases. If there's
| a way to force DuckDuckGo to actually do what I tell it to,
| I'd love to hear it.
| maqnius wrote:
| Try searching for "$FOO", that's what I usually do in
| those cases. See https://duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-
| pages/results/syntax/
| bruh2 wrote:
| I thought this problem will disappear upon switching to
| Kagi, but it suffers from the same disease, albeit to a
| lesser extent.
|
| I remember reading a Google Search engineer on here
| explain that the engine just latches on some unrendered
| text in the HTML code. For example: hidden navbars,
| prefetch, sitemaps.
|
| I was kinda shocked that Google themselves, having
| infinite resources, couldn't get the engine to realize
| which sections gets rendered... so that might have been a
| good excuse.
| mgh2 wrote:
| Also, energy use: 10x as much as a Google search
| https://www.rwdigital.ca/blog/how-much-energy-do-google-
| sear....
| beeflet wrote:
| It's not that signifigant if you compare the average
| person's energy use from internet searches, versus
| something like air conditioning
| SideQuark wrote:
| Saying it's no problem to increase energy use 10x as long
| as something else uses more is not really a compelling
| argument. Especially when there are decent replacements
| to save the 10x item.
|
| If I made a 10x less energy use AC I'd be a billionaire;
| comparing to one of the most costly energy uses that has
| no simple replacement is not a good metric.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| You still have to consider what is worth optimizing and
| what is not. Getting your task done because of a superior
| search engine also saves total energy spent on getting
| that task done.
| psychoslave wrote:
| I doubt air conditioning is as used as internet search
| engines. The only places where I ever saw air
| climatisation is cars and business buildings. I never saw
| one in a personal home, let alone a personal device
| carried in the pocket you can use while walking.
| notfromhere wrote:
| You've never seen a first world house with central air?
| dotancohen wrote:
| GP must live in the UK or India. Well, actually, some
| homes in India do have A/C.
| psychoslave wrote:
| I live in Strasbourg, France.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Interesting, thank you.
|
| I suppose that you do have heating in the home?
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| Forced-air heating basically does not exist in France :).
| To be fair, radient heating is always a nicer experience.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Yes, actually we finally found a house that was
| affordable for us last year, and made lot work in it,
| including wall isolation, changing windows, and install a
| heat pump, replacing the oil-for hearing system that was
| in place. Heat pumps are clearly on the rise around here,
| contrary to AC. There is of course no magic regarding
| electricity price here, but oil provision and prices are
| also big unknowns, all the more with the state pushing
| oil-fire systems out of market as a legal option.
|
| Heat pump
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Doesn't France have extreme heat waves in summer?
|
| The way temperatures have been changing in Europe in the
| past decade, you may not have A/C at home now, but I bet
| you'll have it in ten years, tops. So will everyone else
| and their dogs.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Yes we have pick heat waves. But that didn't make
| magically expand incomes that can be dropped in AC
| installation and operational costs.
|
| As I said, in building that are attached to money
| incomes, be it hostels, shops or restaurants, it's of
| course something that can balanced within loses and
| profits. In a personal home, it will be just eat some of
| your budget.
|
| And with electricity price on the rise (and thus
| basically everything in common goods) and salary
| stagnation on the other hand, I doubt people here will
| suddenly rush on AC on massive scales. Plus government
| apparently are pushing to alternative approach, but I'm
| just discovering that as this thread launched me on the
| track to investigate the topic.
|
| Personally, I doubt I'll jump to some AC anytime soon.
| It's just out of reach for my incomes, all the more when
| there is no basically no chance to see the electricity
| price plummet while my salary has good chances to
| continue to stay freezed as it's been for the two last
| years. And it's not like I feel the most unlucky person
| in the town, to be clear, my situation is far from the
| worst ones I can witness around me.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| most people in Western Europe don't have A/C, houses are
| way better insulated for short-term heatwaves and people
| usually don't mind indoor temperatures of up to
| 80-84F/26-28C. If you add the general hate French (and I
| think German?) people have for drafts and air currents in
| general and you can see how people just deal with the
| heat in the summer.
|
| Not to mention central A/C in the North American sense
| with a air handler & ducts is just never coming to
| France, it's such an outdated technology and forced-air
| heating is generally considered to suck there.
| psychoslave wrote:
| No. Not a single time I can remember in 40 years of
| existence living in Europe.
|
| Shops, restaurants, airports and things like that which
| are attached with revenue streams have them.
|
| I never been in a billionaire palace thus said.
| rvense wrote:
| This is regional. Air conditioning is not at all common
| in Scandinavian homes.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| You really need to broaden your horizons while you still
| have the chance. This is like believing that boats don't
| exist because you live inland and have never seen a boat.
| Hundreds of millions of people are dependent on air
| conditioning in their homes.
| psychoslave wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean with dependent here.
|
| I never said that boats or AC don't exist. Both exist,
| and I did saw and experimented many of them in commercial
| context. But not everyone can afford them plus the cost
| to operate them.
|
| Sure I should broaden my horizon and even consider to
| look people enjoying their private jets and some
| helicopters. But a mere wage slave like myself will never
| have the chance to afford one, that's for sure.
|
| Now let's consider back in initial context: mere mortals
| around me are definitely all using internet as soon as
| there parents will let them do so, and even a homeless
| person can afford a first price mobile access
| (2EUR/months) with a phone they can receive for nothing
| in some charity organizations like Emmaus. So
| affordability of access to online search is definitely
| several order below AC.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Air conditioning is not an extravagant luxury, although I
| know many people who live in cold countries believe so.
| That's why I'm asking you to broaden your horizons. You
| don't consider indoor heating or plumbing a luxury to be
| comparable to a private jet?
|
| In hot and humid places, having AC was always a priority
| a hundred steps above having internet access, until cheap
| smart phones arrived.
|
| And they use a lot of energy, just like heating uses a
| lot of energy in colder climates.
| buildsjets wrote:
| Dependent means it would not be physically possible to
| live in an area if it did not have air conditioning. For
| example, you would die very quickly in Phoenix, Arizona
| if you did not have air conditioning. It is not
| physically possible to live in 50degC heat for any
| extended period. Most of the southern portion of the USA
| was only sparsely settled until the invention and
| deployment of air conditioning. Krugman is on it.
|
| https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201
| 5/0...
|
| https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201
| 5/0...
| psychoslave wrote:
| Wow, didn't expect to be downvoted on something that is
| so obviously aligned with what I see around me. It is a
| very strange feeling, very different from downvoted posts
| that present unpopular opinions.
|
| It makes me look at some statistics
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/911064/worldwide-air-
| con...
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/air-
| condi...
|
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52558
|
| https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20220723-france-does-not-
| use-mu...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFrance/comments/vhs8dn/how_co
| mmo...
|
| Apparently, Japan, USA and now China are huge users of AC
| in personal homes (like more than 90% of them). That's in
| sharp contrast with what is observed in most of Europe,
| including France where I live.
|
| I never had the opportunity to travel to any of this
| country, so indeed I was totally blind of this extrem gap
| in use from my own personal experience.
| robryan wrote:
| Wouldn't googles energy per search also be way up with the
| llm snippet at the top now?
| astrange wrote:
| Google doesn't use ChatGPT, and those numbers for ChatGPT
| (...ignoring that they're made up) don't apply. eg they
| use TPUs for inference not GPUs.
| psychoslave wrote:
| What do you mean with "when it starts"? To my mind it's
| obvious all LLM are heavily biased to a point it's
| ridiculous, all the more with the confident tone they are
| trained to take. I have no doubt Chinese LLM will prise the
| party as much as American ones will sing the gospel of
| neoliberal capitalism.
| int_19h wrote:
| Curiously, when you ask Qwen-72B (from Alibaba) about
| Tiananmen, it's not censored.
| mewpmewp2 wrote:
| We could have many different LLMs trained to be biased in
| different ways and have some form of bias checking tester,
| like ground news - then everyone can get their bias and
| live in their echo chamber.
| astrange wrote:
| Looks okay to me.
|
| https://chatgpt.com/share/6723f225-bd74-8000-bfef-4f7f8687b
| 0...
| Terr_ wrote:
| > I think it's already compelling enough to replace the
| current paradigm. Search is pretty much dead to me. I have to
| end every search with "reddit" to get remotely useful
| results.
|
| I worry that there's a confusion here--and in these debates
| in general--between:
|
| 1. Has the user given enough information that what they want
| could be found
|
| 2. Is the rest of the system set up to actually contain and
| deliver what they wanted
|
| While Aunt Tillie might still have problems with #1, the
| reason things seem to be Going To Shit is more on #2, which
| is why even "power users" are complaining.
|
| It doesn't matter how convenient #1 becomes for Aunt Tillie,
| it won't solve the deeper problems of slop and spam and site
| reputation.
| jahewson wrote:
| Reddit is astroturfed pretty hard too nowadays. It just takes
| more work to spot it.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, the whole "Scope your search to reddit" idea always
| comes up, but it just seems like a really terrible idea.
| How does one know for sure that the results from Reddit are
| any more accurate or authoritative than random SEO spam?
| There's very little curation or moderation there--anyone
| could post anything there. I could go there and comment on
| a subject that I have zero expertise in, make it sound
| confidently correct, and your reddit-scoped search might
| find it. Why would you trust it?
| ho_schi wrote:
| Same here?
|
| Search means either: * Stackoverlow.
| Damaged through new owner but the idea lives. *
| Reddit. Google tries to fuck it up with ,,Auto translation"?
| * Gitlab or GitHub if something needs a bugfix.
|
| The rest of the internet is either an entire ****show or pure
| _gold pressed latinum_ but hardly navigatable thanks to
| monopolies like Google and Microsoft.
|
| PS: ChatGPT already declines in answer because is source is
| Stackoverflow? And...well...these source are humans.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| For what it's worth, sama said at a Harvard event recently
| that he "despised" ads and would use them at a last resort.
| It came across as genuine and I have the intuition/hope that
| they might find an alternative.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Everyone despises ads until other revenue streams run dry
| whiplash451 wrote:
| I know. I thought the same. Still, part of me wants to
| believe that something else will come.
| jamager wrote:
| It is so absurd having to spend so much energy on "what
| happened on the football match yesterday" just because the
| internet is a wasteland full of ads.
| spankalee wrote:
| I don't understand. Google is already excellent at these
| queries.
|
| "who won the warriors game last night" returns last night's
| score directly.
|
| "who won the world series yesterday" returns last night's
| score directly, while "who won the world series" returns an
| overview of the series.
|
| No ads.
| hammock wrote:
| I use the "web search" bot on Poe.com for general questions
| these days, that I previously would have typed into Google
| (Google's AI results are sometimes helpful though). It is
| better than GPT (haven't tried TFA yet though), because it
| actually cites websites that it gets answers from, so you can
| have those and also verify that you aren't getting a
| hallucination.
|
| Besides Poe's Web Search, the other search engine I use, for
| news but also for points of view, deep dive type blog type
| content, is Twitter. Believe it or not. Google search is so
| compromised today with the censorship (of all kinds, not just
| the politically motivated), not to mention Twitter is just more
| timely, that you miss HUGE parts of the internet - and the
| world - if you rely on Google for your news or these other
| things.
|
| The only time I prefer google is when I need to find a
| pointer/link I already know exists or should exist, or to
| search reddit or HN.
| redleggedfrog wrote:
| How can that replace search? It's not full of ads and sponsored
| links. They need to get with the times.
| iamsanteri wrote:
| I was thinking about this myself, so I went to another search
| engine (Bing) which I never use otherwise, and jumped right
| into their "Copilot" search via the top navbar.
|
| Man, it was pretty incredible!
|
| I asked a lot of questions about myself (whom I know best, of
| course) and first of all, it answered super quickly to all my
| queries letting me drill in further. After reading through its
| brief, on-point answers and the sources it provided, I'm just
| shocked at how well it worked while giving me the feeling that
| yes, it can potentially - fundamentally change things. There
| are problems to solve here, but to me it seems that if this is
| where we're at today, yes in the future it has the potential to
| change things to some extent for sure!
| psychoslave wrote:
| What do you mean with "search about myself" here?
| iamsanteri wrote:
| I just wrote my name and asked questions about who it is,
| what he does, what he writes about etc. I have a personal
| blog, and I wrote a master's thesis recently. I also have a
| pretty detailed partially public LinkedIn profile and
| GitHub so if it can dig around it will find out more than
| enough for me to assess its ability to provide information.
| I also have a relatively rare name, there's only five or so
| of us with my full name globally so it cannot get too
| confused.
| _bin_ wrote:
| I hope we see more evolution of options before it does. Hard to
| articulate this without it becoming political, but I've seen
| countless examples both personally and from others of ChatGPT
| refusing to give answers not in keeping with what I'd term
| "shitlib ethics". People seem unwilling to accept that a system
| that talks like a person may surface things they don't like.
| Unless and until an LLM will return results from both Mother
| Jones and Stormfront, I'm not especially interested in using
| one in lieu of a search engine.
|
| To put this differently, I'm not any more interested in seeing
| stormfront articles from an LLM than I am from google, but I
| trust neither to make a value judgement about which is "good"
| versus "bad" information. And sometimes I want to read an
| opinion, sometimes I want to find some obscure forum post on a
| topic rather than the robot telling me no "reliable sources"
| are available.
|
| Basically I want a model that is aligned to do exactly what I
| say, no more and no less, just like a computer should. Not a
| model that's aligned to the "values" of some random SV tech
| bro. Palmer Luckey had a take on the ethics of defense
| companies a while back. He noted that SV CEOs should not be the
| ones indirectly deciding US foreign policy by doing or not
| doing business. I think similar logic applies here: those same
| SV CEOs should not be deciding what information is and is not
| acceptable. Google was bad enough in this respect - c.f.
| suppressing Trump on Rogan recently - but OpenAI could be much
| worse in this respect because the abstraction between
| information and consumer is much more significant.
| antonvs wrote:
| > Basically I want a model that is aligned to do exactly what
| I say
|
| This is a bit like asking for news that's not biased.
|
| A model has to make choices (or however one might want to
| describe that without anthropomorphizing the big pile of
| statistics) to produce a response. For many of these, there's
| no such thing as a "correct" choice. You can do a completely
| random choice, but the results from that tend not to be
| great. That's where RLHF comes in, for example: train the
| model so that its choices are aligned with certain user
| expectations, societal norms, etc.
|
| The closest thing you could get to what you're asking for is
| a model that's trained with your particular biases -
| basically, you'd be the H in RLHF.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Solving this problem will require us to stop using the entire
| web as a source of information. Anyone can write anything and
| put it up on the web, and LLMs have no way to distinguish truth
| from fantasy.
|
| Limiting responses to curated information sources is the way
| forward. Encyclopedias, news outlets, research journals, and so
| on.
|
| No, they're not infallible. But they're infinitely better than
| anonymous web sites.
| techwiz137 wrote:
| You are quite right, and not only can anyone write anything,
| but you have a double whammy from the LLM which can further
| hallucinate from said information.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| How will you afford to hire people to add sources to an
| index, if you want to keep up? Web crawlers/spiders are
| automatic.
| jaybna wrote:
| Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| I get your point. But the current situation is clearly not
| tolerable.
| willmadden wrote:
| Content based marketing and political correctness have severely
| eroded the usefulness of the internet. The LLMs and search
| magnify the erosion.
| colordrops wrote:
| Chat isn't needed to provide reliable answers. Google used to
| do this over a decade ago. What Star Trek didn't foresee was
| vested interests in the SEO space, governments, political
| special interest groups, and the owners of the search engines
| themselves had far too much incentive to bork and bias results
| in their favor. Google is an utter shit show. More than half
| the time it won't find the most basic search query for me.
| Anything older than a couple years, good luck. I'm sure it's
| just decision after decision that piled up, each seemingly
| minor in isolation but over the years has made these engines
| nearly worthless except for a particular window of cases.
| paul7986 wrote:
| People in time will learn that using a GPT for search
| especially for a question that involves research where you had
| to do MANY searches for the answer... now is provided via one
| query.
|
| Making things quicker and easier always wins in tech and in
| life.
| techwiz137 wrote:
| The biggest question is, can this bring back the behaviour of
| search engines from long ago? It's significantly difficult to
| find old posts, blogs or forums with relevant information
| compared to 10-15 years ago.
| freetonik wrote:
| I'm building a blog search engine with the hope to preserve
| at the "blogs" part.
| jahewson wrote:
| Your points are good but I wonder if you're wishing for an
| ideal that has never existed:
|
| > actually surfacing the content people want to see, not what
| intermediaries want them to see
|
| Requires two assumptions, 1) the content people want to see
| actually exists, 2) people know what it is they want to see.
| Most content is only created in the first place because
| somebody wants another person to see it, and people need to be
| exposed to a range of content before having an idea about what
| else they might want to see. Most of the time what people want
| to see is... what other people are seeing. Look at music for
| example.
| thnkman wrote:
| This will probably be extremely radical and controversial in
| this contemporary world.
|
| We need to stop adopting this subscription model society
| mentality and retake _our_ internet. Internet culture was at
| one point about sharing and creating, simply for the sake of
| it. We tinker'd and created in our free time, because we liked
| it and wanted to share with the world. There was something
| novel to this.
|
| We are hackers, we only care about learning and exploring. If
| you want to fix a broken system, look to the generations of
| old, they didn't create and share simply to make money, they
| did it because they loved the idea of a open and free
| information super highway, a place where we could share
| thoughts, ideas and information at the touch of a few
| keystrokes. We _have_ to hold on to this ethos, or we will lose
| what ever little is left of this idea.
|
| I see things like kagi and is instantly met with some new
| service, locked behind a paywall, promising lush green fields
| of bliss. This is part of the problem. (not saying kagi is a
| bad service) I see a normalized stigma around people who value
| privacy, and as a result is being locked out, behind the excuse
| of "mAliCiOuS" activity. I see monstrous giants getting away
| with undermining net neutrality and well established protocols
| for their own benefit.
|
| I implore you all, young and old, re(connect) to the hacker
| ethos, and fight for a free and open internet. Make your very
| existence a act of rebellion.
|
| Thank you for reading my delirium.
| ericmcer wrote:
| I am excited for a future where I search for some info and
| don't end up sifting through ads and getting distracted by some
| tangential clickbait article.
|
| Fundamentally it feels like that cant happen though because
| there is no money in it, but a reality where my phone is an all
| knowing voice I can reliably get info from instead of a
| distraction machine would be awesome.
|
| I do "no screen" days sometimes and tried to do one using
| chatGPT voice mode so I could look things up without staring at
| a screen. It was miles from replacing search, but I would adopt
| it in a second if it could.
| freedomben wrote:
| I genuinely think Kagi has led the way on this one. Simplicity
| is beautiful and effective, and Kagi has (IMHO) absolutely
| nailed it with their AI approach. It's one of those things that
| in hindsight seems obvious, which is a pretty good measure of
| how good an idea is IMHO.
|
| Google _could_ have done it and kind of tried, although they
| 're AI sucks too much. I'm very surprised that OpenAI hasn't
| done this sooner as well. They're initial implementation of web
| search was sad. I don't mean to be super critical as I think
| generally OpenAI is very, very good at what they do, but
| they're initial browse the web was a giant hack that I would
| expect from an intern who isn't being given good guidance by
| their mentors.
|
| Once mainstream engines start getting on par with Kagi, there's
| gonna be a massive wave of destruction and opportunity. I'm
| guessing there will be a lot of new pay walls popping up, and
| lots of access deals with the search engines. This will even
| further raise the barrier of entry for new search entrants, and
| will further fragment information access between the haves and
| have-nots.
|
| I'm also cautiously optimistic though. We'll get there, but
| it's gonna be a bit shakey for a minute or two.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Yep, I was incredibly skeptical about Kagi but I tried it and
| never looked back. Now my wife, friends, and several
| coworkers are customers.
|
| The chatgpt approach to search just feels forced and not as
| intuitive.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Once Kagi implements location aware search that is actually
| useful I'll be interested in Kagi. That's what made me
| leave the engine besides loving it otherwise.
| ahmedbaracat wrote:
| Are you referring to Kagi Assistant?
|
| https://help.kagi.com/kagi/ai/assistant.html
| gr__or wrote:
| I don't understand how it's different to Perplexity, looks
| pretty much the same. Can you enlighten me?
| radicality wrote:
| Not op, but Kagi user. Also have perplexity but usually use
| kagi.
|
| I would say: 1) The UI. You're still performing normal
| searches in Kagi. But if you hit q, or end your query with
| a question mark, you get an llm synthesized answer at the
| top, but can still browse and click through the normal
| search results.
|
| 2) Kagi has personalization, ie you uprank/downrank/block
| domains, so the synthesized llm answer should usually be
| better because it has your personalized search as input.
| dumpsterdiver wrote:
| > nobody had to fact-check the answers ever
|
| Even with perfect knowledge right now, there's no guarantee
| that knowledge will remain relevant when it reaches another
| person at the fastest speed knowledge is able to travel. A
| reasonable answer on one side of the universe could be seen as
| nonsensical on the other side - for instance, the belief that
| we might one day populate a planet which no longer exists.
|
| As soon as you leave the local reference frame (the area in a
| system from which observable events can realistically be
| considered happening "right now"), fact checking is indeed
| required.
| hadlock wrote:
| I've been using ChatGPT for about 6 weeks as my go-to for small
| questions (when is sunset in sf today? list currencies that
| start with the letter P, convert this timestamp PDT to GMT,
| when is the end of Q1 2025?) and it's been great/99% accurate.
| If there was ever a "google killer" I think it's the ad free
| version of ChatGPT with better web search.
|
| Google started off with just web search, but now you can get
| unit conversions and math and stuff. ChatGPT started in the
| other direction and is moving to envelope search. Not being
| directed to sites that also majority serve google ads is a
| double benefit. I'll gladly pay $20/30/mo for an ad free
| experience, particularly if it improves 2x in quality over the
| next year or two. It's starting to feel like a feature complete
| product already.
| r00fus wrote:
| > In those visions, users simply asked questions and received
| reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever.
|
| I mean, Star Trek is a fictional science-fantasy world so it's
| natural that tech works without a hitch. It's not clear how we
| get there from where we are now.
| pojzon wrote:
| We will get there when ppl move past capitalism and socialism.
| Like an ant colony pushing into one direction. It will happen,
| but we need few more global dying events / resets. I believe
| human race can get there but not in current form and state of
| mind.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| there still has to be some ranking feature for the backend
| search database to return the top n results to the LLM. So
| pagerank isn't over, it's just going to move to a supporting
| role, and probably modified as the SEO arms race continues.
| righthand wrote:
| > those visions, users simply asked questions and received
| reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever.
|
| It's a fallacy then. If my mentor tells me something I fact
| check it. Why would a world exist where you don't have to fact
| check? The vision doesn't have fact checking because the
| product org never envisioned that outlier. A world where you
| don't have to check facts, is dystopian. It means the end of
| curiosity and the end of "is that really true? There must be
| something better."
|
| You're just reading into marketing and not fact checking the
| reality in a fact-check-free world.
| mulmen wrote:
| If you can't trust the result of a query how can you trust
| the check on that query which is itself a query? If no
| information is trustworthy how do you make progress?
| lofaszvanitt wrote:
| Kagi also drinks the koolaid, namely the knowledge navigator
| agent bullshite.
|
| "The search will be personal and contextual and excitingly so!"
|
| ---
|
| Brrrr... someone is hell-bent on the extermination of the last
| aspects of humanity.
|
| Holy crap, this will be next armageddon, because people will
| further alienate themselves from other people and create layers
| of layers of unpenetrable personal bubbles around themselves.
|
| Kagi does the same what google does, just in a different
| packaging. And these predictions, bleh, copycats and shills in
| a nicer package.
| itissid wrote:
| This product vision stupidity is present in every one of
| googles products. Maps has _feed_ for some reason. The search
| in it for what I want is horrendous. There is no coherence
| between time(now) and what a person can do around the current
| location.
|
| Navigation is the only thing that works but wayz was way better
| at that and the only reason they killed(cough bought it) was to
| get the eyeballs to look at feed.
| coffeemug wrote:
| Thinking about incentive alignment, non ad-based search would
| be better than ad-based, but there'd still be misalignment due
| to the problem of self-promotion. Consider Twitter for example.
| Writing viral tweets isn't about making money (at least until
| recently), but the content is even worse than SEO spam. There
| is also the other side of the problem that our monkey brains
| don't want content that's good for us in the long run. I would
| _love_ to see (or make) progress in solving this, but this
| problem is really hard. I thought about it a lot, and can't see
| an angle of attack.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Theres the counter incentive of not wanting to piss off your
| paying customers though. I think the monkey brain incentive
| is a much harder problem.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Yes the incentives will need to change. I think it's also going
| to be a bigger question than just software. What do we do in
| general about those that control capital or distribution
| channels and end up rent seeking? How do others thrive in that
| environment?
|
| In the short term, I wonder what happens to a lot of the other
| startups in the AI search space - companies like Perplexity or
| Glean, for example.
| nikcub wrote:
| I now only use Google for local search.
|
| Regarding incentives - with Perplexity, ChatGPT search et al.
| skinning web content - where does it leave the incentive to
| publish good, original web content?
|
| The only incentivised publishing today is in social media
| silos, where it is primarily engagement bait. It's the new SEO.
| jameslk wrote:
| What's the benefit for websites to allow OpenAI/Microsoft to
| scrape and republish all their content without sending traffic
| back to them? It seems like these type of "search engines" will
| just get blocked in the short term.
|
| Longer term, it seems what will be left is "AI Optimized"
| content, which turns LLM search engines into shills for
| advertisers. Or these new search engines will have to compensate
| content producers somehow.
| nomel wrote:
| This is probably powered by Bing indexes. I doubt many would
| intentionally exclude themselves from Bing. I suspect Gemini is
| the same, using Google's index.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| It's crazy how much "vibes" affect perception of the product.
| OpenAI just always feels cold and alien to me. Compared to
| Anthropic and Perplexity's warmth.
| jmakov wrote:
| So basically what phind.com has been doing all the time?
| niemandhier wrote:
| I just checked, there are a lot of topics it will refuse to
| generate search results for.
|
| Sure normal search is policed too, but usually not based on moral
| judgments but on legal necessities.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| They're trying to find new places to cram their money-suck of a
| product in hope of pretending there is a revenue model.
| ncrtower wrote:
| If you ask ChatGPT which search engine it uses, it will tell you
| Bing. And only Bing.
| notkoalas wrote:
| A lot of people are focusing on its reliance on existing SEO -
| but they say right in the post that they're integrating directly
| with data brokers more. They're subtly arguing for the
| elimination of a certain kind of middle man.
| seydor wrote:
| I don't see a way for websites to monetize giving this content to
| openAI. This is not 2001 anymore, people should not expect to
| give away this information for nothing. I would be blocking
| openai bots ASAP
| guluarte wrote:
| I've been saying the biggest treat to google are LLMs
| stonethrowaway wrote:
| This time it's different and it changes everything and it's our
| best one yet.
| _sys49152 wrote:
| is this going to give me lyrics or recipes link or will these
| categories continue to be nerfed by openai? it appears to write
| over its response of providing me a website link and gives me an
| unclickable blue name of website instead.
| numbers wrote:
| Lyrics aren't possible due to copyright restrictions (according
| to ChatGPT). I wonder what else won't be easy to find on here.
| santiagobasulto wrote:
| This is great news. But it gives me anxiety the fact that I'll
| keep accumulating chats on that left bar without any ways to
| manage them or search through them.
|
| Today I was looking for an old (and useful) chat I had a few
| months ago and I had to export the whole chat history, wait for
| the zip file, and write a Python script to find what I was
| looking for :/
| Pesthuf wrote:
| Bing search gets so much dumber when it searches the web that
| I've developed the muscle memory to append #nosearch to every
| prompt so that hopefully it won't. I just searches for unrelated
| stuff and then repeats random stack overflow answers to problems
| that have nothing to do with what I asked.
| xyst wrote:
| Still do not like that ChatGPT does not want to provide sources
| to the answers.
|
| I provided a query to a _somewhat_ common question with Java apps
| and TLS:
|
| Query:
|
| > identify root cause of this Java exception: PKIX path building
| failed:
| sun.security.provider.certpath.SunCertPathBuilderException:
| unable to find valid certification path to requested target
|
| Answer:
|
| > The exception you're encountering, PKIX path building failed,
| typically indicates an issue with SSL/TLS certificate validation.
| Specifically, the error unable to find valid certification path
| to requested target suggests that the Java application cannot
| find a trusted certificate for the server it is trying to connect
| to. Here are the common root causes and solutions:
|
| Missing Certificate in Truststore: The server's SSL certificate
| (or the certificate of its issuing authority) is not present in
| the Java truststore. Solution: Import the server's certificate
| into the Java truststore using the keytool command. You can
| obtain the certificate by using a browser or tools like openssl.
| Self-Signed Certificate: If the server is using a self-signed
| certificate, it won't be trusted by default. Solution: Again,
| import the self-signed certificate into the Java truststore.
| Incorrect Truststore Configuration: The application might be
| pointing to an incorrect truststore or not configured to use one
| at all. Solution: Ensure the application is configured to use the
| correct truststore and that the path is correctly set. Expired
| Certificate: The certificate used by the server might be expired.
| Solution: Check the server's certificate validity and renew it if
| necessary. Intermediate Certificates Missing: If the server's
| certificate chain is incomplete (i.e., missing intermediate
| certificates), it can lead to this error. Solution: Ensure that
| the complete certificate chain is presented by the server or
| manually import any missing intermediate certificates. Network
| Issues: There may be issues with the network or firewalls
| blocking access to the certificate validation services. Solution:
| Check network configurations and ensure proper access. To
| troubleshoot further, you can enable Java SSL debugging by adding
| the following JVM argument:
|
| bash Copy code -Djavax.net.debug=ssl This will provide more
| detailed output regarding the SSL handshake and help identify the
| specific issue.
|
| It's not a bad suggestion, these are my usual go-tos when
| diagnosing cause.
|
| But then a query into what the sources are for this information
| is:
|
| > The information is based on common knowledge about Java
| security, SSL/TLS configurations, and best practices for handling
| certificates. It reflects general principles and troubleshooting
| steps recognized in Java development and security documentation.
| If you're looking for specific references, the Oracle
| documentation on Java security and the keytool command, as well
| as community forums and resources on SSL/TLS issues, often cover
| these topics.
|
| "It's just common knowledge bro. RTFM"
| kernal wrote:
| what time is it?
|
| >Currently, I don't have access to real-time data like time and
| date. You can check the time on your device or search "current
| time" online for the latest local time wherever you are.
|
| Oh dear, we're off to a bad and slow start already.
| JSDevOps wrote:
| The world is literally on fire and we are setting fire to more
| forests because AI can't tell the time and date
| marckrn wrote:
| OpenAI also provides a Chrome Extension
| (https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chatgpt-search/ejcf...)
| to trigger a search from the omnibar as the default search
| engine.
|
| If you don't like that (like I do), you can also manually add it
| under Site Search using
|
| https://chatgpt.com/?q=%s&hints=search
| serjester wrote:
| I tried hacking this together a month ago as an experiment and
| it was super painful. This seems like exactly what I wanted -
| props to OpenAI. Google should be on DEFCON 2.
| modeless wrote:
| First impression: Far too slow to replace Google Search for
| this use. I frequently get 5+ seconds of waiting before the
| first word of a response shows up, vs. less than 1 for Google
| (which is not as fast as it used to be). OpenAI has a lot of
| work to do on latency.
|
| I can definitely see this new search feature being useful
| though. The old one was already useful because (if you asked)
| you could have it visit each result and pull some data out for
| you and integrate it all together, faster than you could do the
| same manually.
|
| It's often hobbled by robots.txt forbidding it to visit pages,
| though. What I really want is for it to use my browser to visit
| the pages instead of doing it server side, so it can use my
| logged-in accounts and ignore robots.txt.
| zurfer wrote:
| nice thank you. I just added that as a custom search to alfred
| (on mac). Works well!
| whizzter wrote:
| This is probably Google's Altavista moment, by making their
| results crappier by the year in search of Ad dollars everyone has
| felt that there is a potential for search to be better and once
| that becomes available they'll be in a continious game of catch-
| up.
|
| Yes, Google has their own AI divisions, tons of money and SEO is
| to blame for part of their crappiness. But they've also
| _explicitly_ focused on ad-dollars over algorithmic purity if one
| is to believe the reports of their internal politics and if those
| are true they have probably lost a ton of people who they'd need
| right now to turn the ship around quickly.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Google's SEO almost killed the web, ChatGPT Search will finish
| the job.
| kylebenzle wrote:
| We are still spending most of our time online on social media
| sites like Hacker News, Instagram and Youtube, right?
| topaz0 wrote:
| That's not the web
| Retr0id wrote:
| Why not?
| cryptoz wrote:
| I'll take a stab at it. What is the web, really? Gotta be
| stuff you see and interact with in web browsers right?
| Sure, you can get to HN, YouTube and Instagram in a
| browser. But by traffic for example, how much of activity
| on HN, Instagram and YouTube combined is through a
| browser? I mean, gotta be pretty low...like 5%? Just a
| guess, but remember all the app usage and TV usage for
| those sites is pretty big.
|
| So if 95% of traffic/users/whatever metric are not using
| a web browser for those activities, is it really the web?
| It can't be called the web just 'cause they use HTTPS.
| It's gotta be a 'world wide web' experience, which I
| think a good proxy for would be using a web browser.
|
| I got no horse in this race, just thinking out loud about
| it.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think the idea is that those are websites on the web,
| which are distinct from the web itself.
|
| There are several meaningful difference between surfing
| Youtube and surfing the web. These include ownership,
| access, review, exposure, and more.
| hidelooktropic wrote:
| How?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Classic innovator's dilemma. The politics of Google make
| launching a search competitor impossible.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Exactly. That's why I never understood Gemini. It is in a
| zero-sum game with Search.
| zo1 wrote:
| Google, even with all the trillions in additional productivity
| it has added to the world, has left the world at a net-
| negative. We can't even quantify it, and every person will tell
| you a different way in which it has impacted the world
| negatively.
|
| E.g. for me, how much Google (and silicon valley in general)
| have enabled twisted ideologies to flourish. All in search of
| ad-dollars by virtue of eyeballs on screens, at the detriment
| of everything.
| olkingcole wrote:
| I was just wondering what has come out of silicon valley
| since say 2003 that has been a net positive for humanity.
| Just because something is profitable doesn't mean it's
| progress.
| topaz0 wrote:
| Now we get to see how OpenAI will do similar harm, more
| effectively and at much greater environmental cost.
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| > if one is to believe the reports of their internal politics
|
| I'm not familiar with what you're referring to here. Happen to
| have a link?
| carls wrote:
| There are probably several, but one of the ones that made the
| rounds a while ago is "The Man Who Killed Google Search" by
| Edward Zitron: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-
| killed-google/
| astrange wrote:
| Prabhakar Raghavan got fired (= promoted out of the job)
| last week.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| For me the key difference between ChatGPT Search and Google is
| the feedback mechanism.
|
| With ChatGPT, I can give a thumbs up or thumbs down; this means
| that OpenAI will optimize for users thumbs up.
|
| With Google, the feedback is if I click on an Ad; this means
| that Google optimizes for clickbait.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I have no doubt that Google's search team is optimizing for
| the best results. The problem is their ads team is optimizing
| for revenue. You can't optimize for two things at the same
| time without compromising (the optimum is the Pareto
| frontier).
| nosbo wrote:
| Is it optimising for all users? And assuming people thumbs up
| the correct info. I wonder what accuracy percentage we are
| looking at there. ChatGPTs responses are so confident when
| wrong I fear people will just give it a thumbs up when its
| wrong. (This is if how I understand the feature you mention
| is working)
| umvi wrote:
| At some point it seems like Google switch to ML-based search
| instead of index based search. You can search for very specific
| combinations of lyrics and scenes: "eyes on me pineapple bucket
| of water house of cards chess time loop" and you won't surface
| a link to the music video featuring all of those things
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlzgDVLtU6g), you'll just get
| really generic results of the average of your query.
| janalsncm wrote:
| I think this is a separate issue although it also exists.
|
| What the parent is referring to is favoring annoying ad-
| filled garbage over an equally relevant but straightforward
| result.
|
| The hidden variable is that ad-riddled spam sites also invest
| in SEO, which is why they rank higher. I am not aware of any
| evidence that Google is using number of Google ads as a
| ranking factor directly. But I would push back and say that
| "SEO" is something Google should be doing, not websites, and
| a properly optimized search engine would be penalizing
| obvious garbage.
| greenavocado wrote:
| Has google completely stopped working for anyone else?
|
| I can still search things, i get results but, they're an
| ordered list of popular places the engine is directing me to.
| Some kind of filtering is occurring on nearly every search i
| make that's making the results feel entirely useless.
|
| Image search stopped working sometime ago and now it just
| runs an AI filter on whatever image you search for, tells you
| there's a man in the picture and gives up.
|
| Youtube recommendations is always hundreds of videos i've
| watched already, with maybe 1-2 recommendations to new
| channels when i know there's millions of content creators out
| there struggling who it will never introduce me to. What
| happened to the rabbit holes of crazy youtube stuff you could
| go down?
|
| This product is a shell of its old self, why did it stop
| working?
| seanthemon wrote:
| They do evil now
| IshKebab wrote:
| Despite all the comments it still works pretty well for me.
| I feel like they've improved it a bit in the last year or
| so so you don't get way too much Quora and
| GitHub/Stackoverflow clones.
|
| The level of sponsored results for some queries is way OTT,
| and obviously any kind of search like "best laptop 2024" is
| never going to give you good results (probably because they
| don't exist), but other than that I'm still pretty happy
| with Google Search.
| kristopolous wrote:
| There's this tech pattern of letting the cash-cow stagnate and
| deteriorate while focusing on high risk moonshots.
|
| This especially happens after they dominate the market.
|
| Take for example IE6, Intel, Facebook, IBM, and now Google.
|
| They _have_ everything they need to keep things from going off
| the rails, management however has a tendency to delusionally
| assume their ship is so unsinkable that they 're not even
| manning their stations.
|
| It becomes Clayton Christensenesque - they're dismissive of the
| competition as not real threats and don't realize their cash-
| cow is running on only fumes and inertia until its too late.
| bamboozled wrote:
| No it's not.
| coffeemug wrote:
| Google is entirely to blame. It would be trivial for them to
| train a model to rank sites on a scale of SEO garbage to nobel
| laureate essay, then filter out the bottom 50%.
| taytus wrote:
| Maybe I'm alone on this, but I genuinely believe that SEO ruined
| the web.
| okasaki wrote:
| I was hoping this would be a search engine to search across your
| chatgpt conversations, but no.
| niek_pas wrote:
| I'm a little confused: I've searched the web with ChatGPT before.
| How is this different?
| kingstoned wrote:
| It's not that different, Google's Gemini already provides this
| functionality where they have source/links in their
| responses...
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Same here. I ask it to search all of the time. I guess maybe
| now it is required to provide sources? It usually did before
| but there were times it didn't so maybe the update is that it's
| required to?
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| I don't mean this in a bad way, but seriously, about time. This
| was the best use case for LLMs on day one, imo.
| surfingdino wrote:
| AdSense/AdWords-like network too? Really curious how it would
| work in ChatGPT Search.
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| ok, so you now have to type "What's the weather in Positano?",
| because typing "Positano weather" into Google was too difficult.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| It's great we chose LLMs for this. You know, a model that is
| completely accurate and has no hallucination problems whatsoever.
| _andrei_ wrote:
| Pretty underwhelming, I've been using on Kagi's assistant [0] for
| the past few months and it's much better. I can `!chat what i
| want to search for` in my address bar any time, and Kagi will do
| the search and then open a chat with the LLM of my choice (3.5
| Sonnet) and the results in context. It can also do further
| searches.
|
| [0] https://kagi.com/assistant
| cvburgess wrote:
| Second this, Assistant is a game-changer for me. Its the
| usefulness of AI with footnotes that give me confidence that I
| can know where that came from and if I trust it. Especially for
| product reviews, being able to use lenses that filter out sites
| I don't trust and then run AI on top of it is pretty cool.
| grayprog wrote:
| I searched for what are the top stories in HN today and one of
| the results was that OpenAI released ChatGPT 5? WTF? Also about
| Rust 2.0. Also, the sources listed were strange, not HackerNews,
| although it did list Hackernews URL on top, but not in sources.
| https://imgur.com/a/AoFiEQt
| nige123 wrote:
| OOF
|
| Smell that!? A large part of Google's search business is on fire
| right now!
|
| There are three types of search: informational, transactional and
| navigational.
|
| LLM's are competing hard and fast for informational search. Once
| upon a time we offered 2.5 keywords to the Google Gods only to be
| ultimately passed to stackoverflow.
|
| That game is up. Google is losing it faster than you can say,
| "anti-competitive practices in the search engine industry."
|
| Transactional and navigational search remain.
| data_spy wrote:
| I did a simple test of "Chicago Velodrome", it provided something
| that has been closed since 2016, Google gave a better result of
| something that is actually around but in the Chicagoland area
| neillyons wrote:
| Definitely "Code Red" for Google Search
| utilityhotbar wrote:
| I consider it very characteristic of Silicon Valley that nobody
| can think of a more immediately useful task for something
| supposedly capable of multi-stage intelligent planning and
| execution other than "plan me a vacation to X location". Are all
| of their hundreds of millions of prospective customers all
| software engineers with long holidays and too much disposable
| income xD
| snadal wrote:
| I would be happy if I could search my previous ChatGPT
| conversations! :)
| galvanizednuts wrote:
| Has there been any indication on whether or not adtech is
| mobilizing to integrate with LLMs to provide "promoted"
| responses? I'm shocked it isn't already a burgeoning area for new
| startups
|
| It sucks but it'll happen for sure
| swyx wrote:
| notice conspicuous lack of New York Times. the partner vs lawsuit
| stakes of traditional media vs openai are playing out now.
| topaz0 wrote:
| The costs are too great. We can't go on like this.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| The reason this is so appealing is because Google is almost
| useless these days.
| alexawarrior4 wrote:
| Tried "Sailflow Galveston Bay", which for google search returns
| the Galveston Bay / Kemah wind/weather report for sailing in the
| area. For GPT Search, returned the Galveston Buoy as the first
| result, which is WRONG, as it is 10+nm off the coast of Galveston
| with often VERY different weather than Galveston Bay. The second
| GPT search result was just the Sailflow home page.
|
| So in this case at least, GPT Search is far inferior and
| dangerously incorrect were someone to rely on these search
| results for weather information.
| rafram wrote:
| It returns the same result as Google for me. I'll take your
| word for it re: the importance.
| svara wrote:
| What is currently considered the state of the art when building
| things like this?
|
| I've heard people find RAG not to work very well, is that
| accurate? Is it just about using the right embeddings?
|
| I suppose ideally you just put the sources in the context window,
| which becomes limiting with large amounts of text?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Phind kinda-sorta did this. For awhile I used it as my primary
| search, but limitations made me go back to Google.
|
| Hopefully ChatGPT's version works very well. Phind was more of a
| kludge to demonstrate what combining chat AI and search can do.
| rushingcreek wrote:
| We're working on a complete redesign of Phind to make it more
| of a search competitor :)
|
| What were the limitations you ran into?
| suyash wrote:
| We need this type of disruption for :
|
| 1. Mobile apps: Don't want to see intrusive apps
|
| 2. YouTube: Don't want to be interrupted with ads and no I don't
| want to buy premium service.
| jscottbee wrote:
| Is a web search worth the added power requirements? In the USA,
| limits are being placed on AI use in data centers due to the lack
| of generation to cover it all.
| mbreese wrote:
| I've been starting to see a shift in my use of ChatGPT. Over the
| past few months, I've started using it more for "knowledge"
| questions (eg: Can you give me a list of genes involved in
| disease X?). Where before I would have used Google for such a
| thing, LLMs have gotten good enough that for quick searches, they
| are "good enough". Yes, you still need to validate the results,
| but it's usually a very good start.
|
| Bonus points for then being able to ask for the results in a
| specific format.
|
| I'm looking forward to seeing how a feature built search engine
| starts to look.
| summerlight wrote:
| I don't understand those people who hope that LLM-based search
| will reduce or eliminate ads in search results. And that's not
| going to happen. You're conflating two orthogonal problems. In
| fact, LLM is much more expensive so you will need more aggressive
| ads to fund it. And ads in LLM based search engine will be harder
| to remove since it's deeply ingrained in the generated result.
|
| The fundamental problem is that ads based business model is much
| more lucrative then subscription based one. It's even more
| extreme when you take account of a prospective view, since you
| have control on ads shown which gives you a large margin for
| future revenue improvements compared to rigid subscription
| models. Unless you have a way to change this dynamic, you're
| going to eventually see ads in search results, regardless of its
| format.
| benbristow wrote:
| I thought this would be more like an actual search engine (like
| Google with ChatGPT built in). Microsoft have been doing similar
| with Copilot since it's inception, albeit they seem to have
| removed the web search functionality with the latest update.
| arealaccount wrote:
| Using language models to summarize search results seems like a
| great use for LLMs. Summarize all of the 50 pages of SEO spam and
| maybe you will get what you're looking for.
| kensai wrote:
| Meanwhile at Google HQ: I felt a great disturbance in the Force,
| as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were
| suddenly silenced...
| asah wrote:
| I turned on search the web to compare vs google search + AI labs,
| and ran a battery of typical tests. Google was instantaneous vs
| gpt-4o which wrote out each letter.
|
| Subjectively, I'm not switching for quick searched - google
| remains lightning fast and is good enough. But I already use
| gpt/claude/etc for conceptual searches and deeper analysis.
|
| ---
|
| [used leica q3] ==> google (product listings and website; Chatgpt
| told me _about_ the Leica q3 and mentioned ebay)
|
| [value of mac air m1] ==> neither!! (google was useless videos
| and crap; chatgpt gave me a price range and useful explanation...
| which made no sense - used was the same price or higher than
| new!)
|
| [vogue lyrics] ==> google wins (gave me the lyrics; Chatgpt
| whined about copyright restrictions and sent me to a youtube
| video)
|
| [weather in nyc] ==> tie (both provided correct, rich detail
| about the current weather)
|
| [root causes of ww1] ==> tie (both identified Militarism,
| Alliances, Imperialism, Nationalism, explained each and then
| mentioned the assassination of the Archduke as the triggering
| event)
|
| [bohemia to midtown] ==> equally bad (both figured out that it's
| a request for local directions, but neither just gave me
| directions until I gave a specific destination)
|
| [bohemia to penn station] ==> ??? (chatgpt correctly gave me
| bohemia ny where google picked some obscure local listing; otoh
| chatgpt wrote out directions where google gave me a nice map)
|
| [btc to usd] ==> tie (both got today's price)
|
| [what time is it in stockholm] ==> tie (both got it right)
|
| [iphone 16 vs 14] ==> chatgpt wins (nice comparison; google
| didn't pop search labs and just gave me websites)
|
| [ffmpeg to clip the last 3 secs of a video] ==> chatgpt ?! (I
| didn't love either answer TBH)
|
| [456+789] ==> google (both gave the answer, but google included a
| nice calculator)
|
| ...and the stuff people really want:
|
| [porn] ==> google (gpt whined about policy violations; google
| gave pornhub and other "useful" results)
| janandonly wrote:
| Very silly question, no doubt, but why don't we train LLM's
| language skills on internet fluff, and actual knowledge only on
| some reputable sources like Wikipedia and Britannica?
| rsync wrote:
| I maintain a little page titled "Misc. information I want search
| engines to find"[1] and so I asked ChatGPT things that are
| answered there:
|
| "How much tea tree oil by volume is in Dr Bronners tea tree oil
| liquid soap?"
|
| A. ... However, the exact volume or percentage of tea tree oil in
| the formulation is not publicly disclosed by the manufacturer.
|
| (which is incorrect, as the manufacturer disclosed it to me and I
| published it on the web)
|
| One conclusion is that the web indexing is relatively shallow.
|
| _However_ ...
|
| "Where does the founder of rsync.net live?"
|
| A. "John Kozubik, the founder and CEO of rsync.net, resides in
| the San Francisco Bay Area."
|
| ... and the source is kozubik.com ... which means they _did_
| index my page but only retain, or weight, some of it ?
|
| _Meanwhile_ ... ublock showing >3k denials during this five
| minute interaction. I guess we can conclude something about where
| they are directing their time and energy.
|
| [1] https://www.kozubik.com/personal/misc.txt
| rurban wrote:
| I just detected perplexity for a proper AI search yesterday. My
| test question today was: Which cbmc solver is multi-threaded?
|
| Perplexity gave me the correct and best answers, with links to
| the relevant arxiv papers.
|
| The new ChatGPT search gave me only cadical as answer, plus 2
| irrelevant wrong answers (not multi-threaded), but missed all
| other multi-threaded solvers. => It's crap.
|
| Neither Google nor ddg gave me any relevant links. Couldn't try
| kagi, since my trial phase is over.
|
| Looks like the fellow who was invited to the Google funeral was
| right. Google search is dead.
| Bromeo wrote:
| Kagi answers that there is "CBMC", which is single-threaded,
| but that there are extensions "Deagle" and "Yogar-CBMC" that
| provide multi-threading for CBMC. It gives links to the papers
| for all three, however some of them are closed access (or in
| other words, fact checked, unlike arxiv).
| Etheryte wrote:
| It's hard to cross check since you didn't mention what you
| consider are good answers, but the quick answer snippet on Kagi
| says:
|
| > The Yogar-CBMC and JCBMC solvers are notable multi-threaded
| variants of the CBMC (C Bounded Model Checker) framework: ...
|
| Followed by further details and references. The search results
| themselves look relevant and reasonable to me, but again,
| outside my area of expertise.
| rurban wrote:
| Both are bad answers
| aloer wrote:
| There is so much value in blue links turning purple and showing
| the same content on repeat visits.
|
| This kind of permanence is a huge loss
| impulser_ wrote:
| Why would I use this over Google? This has the same problem as
| Preplexity.
|
| Google is instant, why would I wait for a bunch of text to
| generate just to get basic information.
| davidclark wrote:
| > Ask a question in a more natural, conversational way
|
| I think this might actually be my main pain point with LLMs.
| Personally, I don't want this.
|
| I understand it might be helpful for other people. But, I prefer
| highly specific, advanced search functionality, such as site: or
| filetype: in google/ddg searches.
|
| scryfall.com for magic the gathering cards is a great example.
| I'd much prefer typing a few brief flags such as "id=r" instead
| of "Get me all red identity cards." And I know I'm getting _all_
| red identity cards with scryfall's current search functionality.
|
| They are also composable, so I can add/drop ones easily instead
| of perfectly rephrasing a whole sentence because I wanted to
| change one clause.
|
| I'd need the same level of trust in the LLM's filtering
| capabilities as I do in those boolean or regex matching field
| filters. An escape hatch to hard filters probably would be best
| for my experience searching things.
| gsemyong wrote:
| It's creepy how fast you can find lots of information about any
| person using this. I think something should be done about that.
| epolanski wrote:
| How does it go around websites scraping limitations?
|
| I've tried Gemini flash, given it links to websites but it
| claimed to have knowledge, or be able to read it only so many
| times (kind of query, "summarize https://foo-bar/news-1")
| submeta wrote:
| Just compared it to Perplexity which offers web search, can use
| many models to process the results, and presents results more
| beautifully.
|
| So ChatGPT's search looks rather rudimentary compared with
| Perplexity.
| Marius_Manola wrote:
| So, should we expect Perplexity to post that "OpenAI killed my
| startup" kind of article? (just saying)
| nelox wrote:
| Will OpenAI pay Apple around USD$20bn per year to be the default
| search like Google?
| nextworddev wrote:
| What's funny is that web search was one of the first "chatgpt
| plugins" in the market, which flopped terribly. This is basically
| a rebrand of that.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-31 23:00 UTC)