6 ms·

> I feel like Google is going to bleed credibility for every month that they don't have a lamda/llm enabled search integrated into the home page. You can talk a

> I feel like Google is going to bleed credibility for every month that they don't have a lamda/llm enabled search integrated into the home page. You can talk all you want about the foundational models and how advanced they are, but the search product itself will require a ton of fine-tuning on real-world training data that they aren't collecting yet. I love ChatGPT as a source of inspiration, but I don't think I'd want it alongside my search results. In particular, when I'm searching the web I want results with at least some degree of accuracy. I can't trust a single thing ChatGPT says to be true. Admittedly, random websites can also be inaccurate, but at least I have strategies for assessing whether I trust a given source.

TrevorJ 4y ago
Google already has an issue with accuracy - the snippets they choose are often not very correct.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Yes but I think they're correct a lot more often than ChatGPT. And they give the source!
  - visarga 4y ago
    Search "What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot" and see precision Zero. None of the responses match the query. It should say - not found. Or actually find that people attempted to illegally cross through the Channel Tunnel. Usually when I search for error messages for a specific version of software it will respond with other versions. That is useless. That's not what 24 years worth of excellence in search should look like. At the very least they should collate a dataset of say, one million queries, and try to use a LLM to find the correct answers using search. A better search ranking model will make the LLM generate more correct answers. Iterate until score is improved. Just make the result solve the task.
    - throwawayapples 4y ago
      asking ChatGPT gives very interesting results (didn't check accuracy): > What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot As of my training data, the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot is held by Christof Wandratsch, who completed the swim in 8 hours and 58 minutes on August 25, 2018. > Swimming isn't on foot My apologies, you are correct. The English Channel is typically crossed by swimming. The world record for swimming the English Channel is held by Benoît Lecomte, who completed the swim in 8 hours and 1 minute on July 23, 1998. > That's faster and earlier... what did Christof Wandratsch do that was different Christof Wandratsch completed a cross-Channel run, covering the distance between England and France on foot. This is a different feat than swimming the Channel, as it involves running across the Channel Tunnel, which connects England and France beneath the seabed.
      - khmii 4y ago
        It just told me a different person too: "The world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot (without the aid of any swimming or flotation devices) is held by Belgian endurance swimmer and long-distance runner, Kevin Swartz. He completed the 35-mile (56 km) journey from England to France in just 13 hours and 54 minutes on August 17, 2019." chatGPT really is a brilliant compulsive liar.
    - MaxDPS 4y ago
      I think that is till better than ChatGPT's answer which was: "The fastest recorded time for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot (without the aid of swimming or any other means of transportation) is 16 hours and 34 minutes, achieved by British endurance athlete Damian Hall in August 2021." So, it seems like it made up an answer instead, which I think is much worse that Googles response.
- pkulak 4y ago
  Maybe, but you can at least see the context, where it came from, all that. In my house we have a habit of asking our Google Home "Hey, Google, can rabbits eat..." and then you can see where the info came from and make a pretty good decision on if this random vegetable you have will kill your pet. If AI chat stuff takes that over, I'm out.
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  It's incredibly frustrating. They're often completely wrong.
patapong 4y ago
I disagree. The other day, I was debugging an issue in a web application. Only on iPhones, dragging an element around left odd residue on the screen. I googled the issue but was completely unable to find a solution, even though I consider myself a seasoned google user. I asked the question to ChatGPT, which immediately gave me the way to fix the issue. Having a ChatGPT answer next to the google result would have saved me a bunch of time, and I could see it coming in useful in many cases.
- msikora 4y ago
  Exactly same experience. ChatGPT is now my go to source for programming problems. It is usually correct (or correct enough) and when it is correct enough it saves a ton of time vs Google search and then going through dozens of StackOverflow or GitHub pages that may or may not have an answer.

TrevorJ 4y ago

Google already has an issue with accuracy - the snippets they choose are often not very correct.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Yes but I think they're correct a lot more often than ChatGPT. And they give the source!
- visarga 4y ago
  Search "What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot" and see precision Zero. None of the responses match the query. It should say - not found. Or actually find that people attempted to illegally cross through the Channel Tunnel. Usually when I search for error messages for a specific version of software it will respond with other versions. That is useless. That's not what 24 years worth of excellence in search should look like. At the very least they should collate a dataset of say, one million queries, and try to use a LLM to find the correct answers using search. A better search ranking model will make the LLM generate more correct answers. Iterate until score is improved. Just make the result solve the task.
  - throwawayapples 4y ago
    asking ChatGPT gives very interesting results (didn't check accuracy): > What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot As of my training data, the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot is held by Christof Wandratsch, who completed the swim in 8 hours and 58 minutes on August 25, 2018. > Swimming isn't on foot My apologies, you are correct. The English Channel is typically crossed by swimming. The world record for swimming the English Channel is held by Benoît Lecomte, who completed the swim in 8 hours and 1 minute on July 23, 1998. > That's faster and earlier... what did Christof Wandratsch do that was different Christof Wandratsch completed a cross-Channel run, covering the distance between England and France on foot. This is a different feat than swimming the Channel, as it involves running across the Channel Tunnel, which connects England and France beneath the seabed.
    - khmii 4y ago
      It just told me a different person too: "The world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot (without the aid of any swimming or flotation devices) is held by Belgian endurance swimmer and long-distance runner, Kevin Swartz. He completed the 35-mile (56 km) journey from England to France in just 13 hours and 54 minutes on August 17, 2019." chatGPT really is a brilliant compulsive liar.
  - MaxDPS 4y ago
    I think that is till better than ChatGPT's answer which was: "The fastest recorded time for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot (without the aid of swimming or any other means of transportation) is 16 hours and 34 minutes, achieved by British endurance athlete Damian Hall in August 2021." So, it seems like it made up an answer instead, which I think is much worse that Googles response.
pkulak 4y ago
Maybe, but you can at least see the context, where it came from, all that. In my house we have a habit of asking our Google Home "Hey, Google, can rabbits eat..." and then you can see where the info came from and make a pretty good decision on if this random vegetable you have will kill your pet. If AI chat stuff takes that over, I'm out.
gardenhedge 4y ago
It's incredibly frustrating. They're often completely wrong.

patapong 4y ago

I disagree. The other day, I was debugging an issue in a web application. Only on iPhones, dragging an element around left odd residue on the screen. I googled the issue but was completely unable to find a solution, even though I consider myself a seasoned google user. I asked the question to ChatGPT, which immediately gave me the way to fix the issue. Having a ChatGPT answer next to the google result would have saved me a bunch of time, and I could see it coming in useful in many cases.

msikora 4y ago
Exactly same experience. ChatGPT is now my go to source for programming problems. It is usually correct (or correct enough) and when it is correct enough it saves a ton of time vs Google search and then going through dozens of StackOverflow or GitHub pages that may or may not have an answer.