10 ms·

I agree that chat bots aren’t the proper modality for replacing search. So what? Currently, Google search results stink. ChatGPT results are way better in a num

I agree that chat bots aren’t the proper modality for replacing search. So what? Currently, Google search results stink. ChatGPT results are way better in a number of domains. Does it need to be a chat bot? No. But Google still stinks now. I’ll take anything that can just find the correct information.

lerchmo 4y ago
Google search results are a vortex of perverse incentives and double dipping. The fact that google ranks horrible CPM arbitrage websites for nearly everything AND monetizes these websites... yuck. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine how some of these AI Models could leverage a search index + something like wolfram alpha to generate a much more targeted and valuable search result.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine how some of these AI Models could leverage a search index + something like wolfram alpha to generate a much more targeted and valuable search result. Sure but the problem with the rocket scientists is they think about how good things can be, not how evil they can be. Sure, a chat bot could be made to give very valuable-to the end user results but as it will free like Google, results yielding-profits-to-company will be given, in the fashion you describe Google doing.
  - lerchmo 4y ago
    That is the back side of the arc, the (maybe inevitable) decline into collecting monopoly profits. I think people are excited about these language models as way to crack the Monopoly with something that delivers more value to users.
joe_the_user 4y ago
Google certainly sinks for my purposes. But these current results are exactly what happens a company carefully calculates the monetization involved in retrieving information. Open AI isn't calculating the monetization of ChatGPT's answers and doesn't have a real business plan (paid chat won't go further than paid search imo). The thing is, once Open AI engages in the calculations done by Google, having the results seem to come from an "intelligence" can only make the effect worse (though I suspect Google will also tend to look like an intelligence/chatbot too as things progress, the future looks ugly)
megablast 4y ago
Google has ruined the web. Look what they did to recipe sites?? Truly awful. And there used to be sites that answered the question on the search page. Google pushed them to the bottom.
- lerchmo 4y ago
  Yeah, they are responsible for those 5 minute scroll sessions above the recipes. They rank and monetize those horrible sites.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  I've stopped using unqualified Google searches for recipes. Limiting results to allrecipes.com helps a fair amount (they're a pretty unobnoxious site as things go). It's telling that Google doesn't rank them higher.
- Levitz 4y ago
  Half of what constitutes SEO is an utter disgrace. Every single hour spent putting work on a website that doesn't go towards any of its users is better not happening. If AI is what it takes so a website doesn't have to "feature" whatever amount of useless stupid paragraphs riddled with keywords to tell Google what the site is about then so be it.
- CM30 4y ago
  Is that purely a Google thing? I thought the bullshit added to recipes pages was also a copyright thing, in an attempt to stop aggregation services using them.
williamtrask 4y ago
This is a great point. Followup question - is LLM tech more or less likely to end up replacing search when those same incentives really saturate the LLM product itself. One big difference seems to be attribution. LLMs don’t tell you where their info comes from. They just say what is (but can be asked to cite works - with mixed results). Will LLMs get good at citing sources and if not will people care or will they give in to LLMs as a source of information that’s “good enough because it mostly works” From a product placement / ads perspective, being able to persuade people to fully accept everything an ad-infused LLM says because it’s good enough seems like an incredibly lucrative product bundling opportunity if they can get it right. Esp. If they can use that to convince regulators they can’t annotate the difference between ads and non ads. Seems pretty dystopian from a disinformation perspective though.
charcircuit 4y ago
How does Google stink? I've never had an issue with. What query does it struggle with?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  It sucks for things that can be monetised. Searching info on products for example. Just because SEO spammers are too good. text generators will make this problem so much worse because the spam will look exactly like the hand made content.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    query: "apple watch" 1st result: https://www.apple.com/watch/ https://www.apple.com/watch/ Google worked perfectly for me when I wanted to buy a product.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      For the most trivial queries. Try something like “best frypan” and it becomes a lot harder to find real content that isn’t sponsored junk. Adding “reddit” to the query is the best option so far.
      - klabb3 4y ago
        > Adding “reddit” to the query is the best option so far. Case in point. The fact that this works really well for this type of content means that Google has failed. Now whether they failed deliberately or not is a different question. In either case, search needs to be demonopolized. The truth is we don’t even know what search would be like without the Google hegemony. Even if all language models do is force Google to innovate and improve it’s worth every penny.
      - charcircuit 4y ago
        Google doesn't know the fact of what frying pan is objectively the best and websites containing such an answer are going to be biased. That's an impossible query to answer with more personalization which may not even be possible.
silisili 4y ago
I tend to agree for a lot of queries. For example, I just got curious and asked Google how many oranges in a cup of juice. The main result is a conversion of a cup to cubic inches, for no reason. Scrolling down a bit, the first usable answer was a quora blurb. ChatGPT told me it depends on the size and type of orange, but generally 2 to 4. Guess which one I'll use next time?
- riku_iki 4y ago
  You are using Google incorrectly. You need to add "reddit" at the end of all your queries.
  - silisili 4y ago
    You're not wrong. If Reddit built a useable search, my Google use would drop by 2/3.
    - rasz 4y ago
      reddit search cant even find my own post when Im logged in :)
  - duckydude20 4y ago
    when i couldn't find any good search result. i append reddit at the end. and voila i got some good results. even if they are not exact, they tell me what to look for.
- foobazgt 4y ago
  I just asked Google assistant this: "How many oranges are in a cup of juice?". It responded with: "Two to three oranges", and then followed up with more information why and a link to the source where it derived the information (https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2760/juice-in-citrus-fruits.html https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2760/juice-in-citrus-f...). I'm not sure why you didn't get this, but it seems better than ChatGPT.
  - 4y ago

lerchmo 4y ago

Google search results are a vortex of perverse incentives and double dipping. The fact that google ranks horrible CPM arbitrage websites for nearly everything AND monetizes these websites... yuck. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine how some of these AI Models could leverage a search index + something like wolfram alpha to generate a much more targeted and valuable search result.

joe_the_user 4y ago
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to imagine how some of these AI Models could leverage a search index + something like wolfram alpha to generate a much more targeted and valuable search result. Sure but the problem with the rocket scientists is they think about how good things can be, not how evil they can be. Sure, a chat bot could be made to give very valuable-to the end user results but as it will free like Google, results yielding-profits-to-company will be given, in the fashion you describe Google doing.
- lerchmo 4y ago
  That is the back side of the arc, the (maybe inevitable) decline into collecting monopoly profits. I think people are excited about these language models as way to crack the Monopoly with something that delivers more value to users.

joe_the_user 4y ago

Google certainly sinks for my purposes. But these current results are exactly what happens a company carefully calculates the monetization involved in retrieving information. Open AI isn't calculating the monetization of ChatGPT's answers and doesn't have a real business plan (paid chat won't go further than paid search imo). The thing is, once Open AI engages in the calculations done by Google, having the results seem to come from an "intelligence" can only make the effect worse (though I suspect Google will also tend to look like an intelligence/chatbot too as things progress, the future looks ugly)

megablast 4y ago

Google has ruined the web. Look what they did to recipe sites?? Truly awful. And there used to be sites that answered the question on the search page. Google pushed them to the bottom.

lerchmo 4y ago
Yeah, they are responsible for those 5 minute scroll sessions above the recipes. They rank and monetize those horrible sites.
dpkirchner 4y ago
I've stopped using unqualified Google searches for recipes. Limiting results to allrecipes.com helps a fair amount (they're a pretty unobnoxious site as things go). It's telling that Google doesn't rank them higher.
Levitz 4y ago
Half of what constitutes SEO is an utter disgrace. Every single hour spent putting work on a website that doesn't go towards any of its users is better not happening. If AI is what it takes so a website doesn't have to "feature" whatever amount of useless stupid paragraphs riddled with keywords to tell Google what the site is about then so be it.
CM30 4y ago
Is that purely a Google thing? I thought the bullshit added to recipes pages was also a copyright thing, in an attempt to stop aggregation services using them.

williamtrask 4y ago

This is a great point. Followup question - is LLM tech more or less likely to end up replacing search when those same incentives really saturate the LLM product itself. One big difference seems to be attribution. LLMs don’t tell you where their info comes from. They just say what is (but can be asked to cite works - with mixed results). Will LLMs get good at citing sources and if not will people care or will they give in to LLMs as a source of information that’s “good enough because it mostly works” From a product placement / ads perspective, being able to persuade people to fully accept everything an ad-infused LLM says because it’s good enough seems like an incredibly lucrative product bundling opportunity if they can get it right. Esp. If they can use that to convince regulators they can’t annotate the difference between ads and non ads. Seems pretty dystopian from a disinformation perspective though.

charcircuit 4y ago

How does Google stink? I've never had an issue with. What query does it struggle with?

Gigachad 4y ago
It sucks for things that can be monetised. Searching info on products for example. Just because SEO spammers are too good. text generators will make this problem so much worse because the spam will look exactly like the hand made content.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  query: "apple watch" 1st result: https://www.apple.com/watch/ https://www.apple.com/watch/ Google worked perfectly for me when I wanted to buy a product.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    For the most trivial queries. Try something like “best frypan” and it becomes a lot harder to find real content that isn’t sponsored junk. Adding “reddit” to the query is the best option so far.
    - klabb3 4y ago
      > Adding “reddit” to the query is the best option so far. Case in point. The fact that this works really well for this type of content means that Google has failed. Now whether they failed deliberately or not is a different question. In either case, search needs to be demonopolized. The truth is we don’t even know what search would be like without the Google hegemony. Even if all language models do is force Google to innovate and improve it’s worth every penny.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      Google doesn't know the fact of what frying pan is objectively the best and websites containing such an answer are going to be biased. That's an impossible query to answer with more personalization which may not even be possible.

silisili 4y ago

I tend to agree for a lot of queries. For example, I just got curious and asked Google how many oranges in a cup of juice. The main result is a conversion of a cup to cubic inches, for no reason. Scrolling down a bit, the first usable answer was a quora blurb. ChatGPT told me it depends on the size and type of orange, but generally 2 to 4. Guess which one I'll use next time?

riku_iki 4y ago
You are using Google incorrectly. You need to add "reddit" at the end of all your queries.
- silisili 4y ago
  You're not wrong. If Reddit built a useable search, my Google use would drop by 2/3.
  - rasz 4y ago
    reddit search cant even find my own post when Im logged in :)
- duckydude20 4y ago
  when i couldn't find any good search result. i append reddit at the end. and voila i got some good results. even if they are not exact, they tell me what to look for.
foobazgt 4y ago
I just asked Google assistant this: "How many oranges are in a cup of juice?". It responded with: "Two to three oranges", and then followed up with more information why and a link to the source where it derived the information (https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2760/juice-in-citrus-fruits.html https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2760/juice-in-citrus-f...). I'm not sure why you didn't get this, but it seems better than ChatGPT.
- 4y ago