I can only speak for myself here, but 90% of my search engine usage boils down to trying to get the answer to some kind of problem, be that a coding problem or

I can only speak for myself here, but 90% of my search engine usage boils down to trying to get the answer to some kind of problem, be that a coding problem or a cooking problem or a mechanical problem etc, the other 10% of the time is some kind of research. Call this a 90/10 split. Of that 90, I would say about 75% of my questions can be answered by GPT* trivially. Most of this is due to the fact most of my problems are not novel. Of that 10, the results are much more all over the place. I would say half or less. The thing is, when you get crappy results from the LLM, they are genuine technical limitations (as long as you avoid politics and religion, if you are researching those with the LLM, good luck with that), not intentional badness put there to make someone else a few pennies off of wasting my time. There is a certain value there that is hard to quantify. The other killer feature is being able to have a conversation about the results. This, for me, pushes the usefulness factor way above Google. The options for having conversations about technical topics with humans are comparatively god-awful.