3 ms·
It does. "Google search sucks" returns what you'd expect. What GP is getting at is that Google Search breaks down often when you're looking for a very specific
by rmellow 4y ago
It does.
"Google search sucks" returns what you'd expect.
What GP is getting at is that Google Search breaks down often when you're looking for a very specific result, but one that is uncommon enough. Instead, you're often diverted to a "related" query result without them telling you.
- visarga 4y agoIf you search "What is the world record for crossing the English Channel entirely on foot?" Google would respond with swimming, boats, pedalling etc but miss the ones where people crossed on foot through the Channel Tunnel. An improbable search is almost impossible to do on Google. They will replace it with unrelated but similar results. Even when you specify a strong condition, it will just ignore it and return the exact opposite. It's no better than LLM hallucination. There are pairs of words that are very similar, but semantically different. Like "latitude" and "longitude" or "first name" and "last name". Google's model can't make fine distinctions between related (like latitude and longitude) and semantically equivalent (like last_name and family_name). You search for a semantic match, it will give you a related result that is exactly not matching your search.