4 ms·

We don't need to. We have LLMs now

by mvkel 2y ago

frabjoused 2y ago
I still would like to search and not get the dog crap that is Google's Internet, in addition to using LLMs myself.
- komali2 2y ago
  Non LLM efforts include alternative and even self hosted search engine indexes. I'm also curious if brave search's concept of "goggles" could work out, where you can write your own indexing logic and share it with others.
  - frabjoused 2y ago
    We don't need self-hosted alternatives (just like the computer market doesn't need Linux tinkerers) as much as we need a real formidable competitor to dethrone Google and create proper website incentives so the Internet stops sucking. We need SEO companies to realize they will go out of business if they continue to generate crap filler content for their clients. We know Google won't do it. We need influence. We need effective results. Self-hosted is cute but ineffective at best, selfish at worst.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
      Hmm, I reflexively disagree, but I disagree even after considering it from other different positions. Need is a strong term and it is likely doing a lot of work in that claim. We, technically, do not need much bar food, water and shelter. In that sense, the post is absolutely correct. Realistically, there is zero need for self-hosting, or linux, or anything much really. But even if we get past the need claim, why is setting up a duopoly a preferred option to people actually running their own preferred setups ( and maybe even learning something in the process )? More importantly, why on earth would I want yet another giant corporation in charge of my digital life? << create proper website incentives so the Internet stops sucking. Interestingly, linux tinkerers and self-hosters are likely one of the few reasons web does not suck AS much as it otherwise could have. In a sense, the incentives are there. << We need SEO companies to realize they will go out of business if they continue to generate crap filler content for their clients. Business is just that.. a business. I don't expect mosquito not to bite me. If anything, the whole premise is wrong. SEO companies defer to google's wishes and google heard the pleas of the ad industry and declared war on adblockers. << We need influence. We need effective results. Zero disagreement. << Self-hosted is cute but ineffective at best, selfish at worst. I dunno. It might be selfish, but I am ok with that if that is the worst. I would worry about it being ineffective, but.. I like my various instances. They serve a purpose to me.
- voisin 2y ago
  I agree. My issue with LLMs is that it isn’t clear when it is hallucinating versus when it isn’t.
  - docandrew 2y ago
    It’s always hallucinating… but sometimes the hallucinations are of things that actually happened.
- szszrk 2y ago
  I know it's the other way around of what you are suggesting, but I feel I'm using Kagi for a while for the same reasons, with results you expect. Their search is much, much cleaner, that's for sure. But what made me stick (and mostly ditch DDG, which btw is also much cleaner than google), was how well their fastgpt works as a search tool. Summaries are very good, it includes recent events and news, it goes through pdfs, always cites it's sources. Does hallucinate for me sometimes, but I always can tell it's incorrect by the response itself. Plus it usually gives me links that easily clear out the confusion. Especially in IT field I can tell I'm fed with the source of my trouble (like initial GitHub issue that introduces broken functionality, source pdf of a study) and less discussion around it. Their search has some neat features as well, as you can simply choose to see less/no results from given site straight from list of search results.
  - dmje 2y ago
    Yes - and the other killer feature in Kagi is being able to uprank your own choice of sites, and set contexts for this upranking. That to me is the killer thing about it
- TexanFeller 2y ago
  Switch to Kagi, IMHO it's worlds better than Google. It's worth the price, I get a lot more out of it than my Netflix subscription.
goatlover 2y ago
Which LLMs stay current and link their sources? If I have to wait on the LLM to search for me, I'd rather just do the search myself. What if I want to search for something the LLM can't show me? Or something I want to watch or interact with that isn't an LLM?
- mvkel 2y ago
  GPT-4o serves up results that look like Perplexity's, except the sources are actually relevant links. All of that to say: solved problem? Assuming you're ok with chat as the UI
- frabjoused 2y ago
  I'm saying use LLMs as preprocessors to form predetermined rankings by URI which weigh into the search. Let the crawler pipe into an LLM.
  - foogazi 2y ago
    I get it - use the LLM score as an additional metric for page rank, not ask the LLM for search results
freitzkriesler2 2y ago
I'm sorry but LLMs notoriously provide inaccurate and otherwise awful information. Case in point, I asked an LLM what the last non cellular windows mobile classic PDA was. (I knew the answer) And it routinely got it wrong. This is what LLMs should be useful for. If I cant audit the results or very how it came to the conclusion the answer is useless. LLMs are toys at this juncture.
- simonw 2y ago
  That's a great example of the kind of prompt that I intuitively know wouldn't return a useful result... but I can't explain WHY I intuitively know that. Which is deeply frustrating.
- mvkel 2y ago
  Here are the results for that exact search in Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+was+the+last+non+cellular+windows+mobile+classic+PDA&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari https://www.google.com/search?q=what+was+the+last+non+cellul... vs 4o: The last non-cellular Windows Mobile Classic PDA was the HP iPAQ 110 Classic. Released in 2008, it ran on Windows Mobile 6.0 Classic and featured a 624-MHz Marvell PXA310 processor, 256MB of Flash ROM, and a 3.5-inch screen with a 240 x 320 resolution. It included Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity but lacked cellular capabilities, making it one of the final models in the declining PDA market as smartphones began to dominate [oai_citation:1,List of Windows Mobile devices - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Windows_Mobile_devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Windows_Mobile_devices) [oai_citation:2,The End of the Classic Version of Windows Mobile (AKA the PDA)](http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/commentary/end_of_WM_Classic.htm http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/commentary/end_of_WM_Classic.htm) [oai_citation:3,HP iPAQ 110 Classic - PDA Like It's 1999 - WiFi Planet](https://wi-fiplanet.com/hp-ipaq-110-classic/ https://wi-fiplanet.com/hp-ipaq-110-classic/). I know which version I'd prefer.
  - qiqitori 2y ago
    What about the HP iPAQ 112 then? Wasn't the HP iPAQ 110 Classic released in November 2007? Also why are you entering questions into the Google search prompt?

We don't need to. We have LLMs now

by mvkel 2y ago

We don't need to. We have LLMs now

frabjoused 2y ago

I still would like to search and not get the dog crap that is Google's Internet, in addition to using LLMs myself.

komali2 2y ago
Non LLM efforts include alternative and even self hosted search engine indexes. I'm also curious if brave search's concept of "goggles" could work out, where you can write your own indexing logic and share it with others.
- frabjoused 2y ago
  We don't need self-hosted alternatives (just like the computer market doesn't need Linux tinkerers) as much as we need a real formidable competitor to dethrone Google and create proper website incentives so the Internet stops sucking. We need SEO companies to realize they will go out of business if they continue to generate crap filler content for their clients. We know Google won't do it. We need influence. We need effective results. Self-hosted is cute but ineffective at best, selfish at worst.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    Hmm, I reflexively disagree, but I disagree even after considering it from other different positions. Need is a strong term and it is likely doing a lot of work in that claim. We, technically, do not need much bar food, water and shelter. In that sense, the post is absolutely correct. Realistically, there is zero need for self-hosting, or linux, or anything much really. But even if we get past the need claim, why is setting up a duopoly a preferred option to people actually running their own preferred setups ( and maybe even learning something in the process )? More importantly, why on earth would I want yet another giant corporation in charge of my digital life? << create proper website incentives so the Internet stops sucking. Interestingly, linux tinkerers and self-hosters are likely one of the few reasons web does not suck AS much as it otherwise could have. In a sense, the incentives are there. << We need SEO companies to realize they will go out of business if they continue to generate crap filler content for their clients. Business is just that.. a business. I don't expect mosquito not to bite me. If anything, the whole premise is wrong. SEO companies defer to google's wishes and google heard the pleas of the ad industry and declared war on adblockers. << We need influence. We need effective results. Zero disagreement. << Self-hosted is cute but ineffective at best, selfish at worst. I dunno. It might be selfish, but I am ok with that if that is the worst. I would worry about it being ineffective, but.. I like my various instances. They serve a purpose to me.
voisin 2y ago
I agree. My issue with LLMs is that it isn’t clear when it is hallucinating versus when it isn’t.
- docandrew 2y ago
  It’s always hallucinating… but sometimes the hallucinations are of things that actually happened.
szszrk 2y ago
I know it's the other way around of what you are suggesting, but I feel I'm using Kagi for a while for the same reasons, with results you expect. Their search is much, much cleaner, that's for sure. But what made me stick (and mostly ditch DDG, which btw is also much cleaner than google), was how well their fastgpt works as a search tool. Summaries are very good, it includes recent events and news, it goes through pdfs, always cites it's sources. Does hallucinate for me sometimes, but I always can tell it's incorrect by the response itself. Plus it usually gives me links that easily clear out the confusion. Especially in IT field I can tell I'm fed with the source of my trouble (like initial GitHub issue that introduces broken functionality, source pdf of a study) and less discussion around it. Their search has some neat features as well, as you can simply choose to see less/no results from given site straight from list of search results.
- dmje 2y ago
  Yes - and the other killer feature in Kagi is being able to uprank your own choice of sites, and set contexts for this upranking. That to me is the killer thing about it
TexanFeller 2y ago
Switch to Kagi, IMHO it's worlds better than Google. It's worth the price, I get a lot more out of it than my Netflix subscription.

goatlover 2y ago

Which LLMs stay current and link their sources? If I have to wait on the LLM to search for me, I'd rather just do the search myself. What if I want to search for something the LLM can't show me? Or something I want to watch or interact with that isn't an LLM?

mvkel 2y ago
GPT-4o serves up results that look like Perplexity's, except the sources are actually relevant links. All of that to say: solved problem? Assuming you're ok with chat as the UI
frabjoused 2y ago
I'm saying use LLMs as preprocessors to form predetermined rankings by URI which weigh into the search. Let the crawler pipe into an LLM.
- foogazi 2y ago
  I get it - use the LLM score as an additional metric for page rank, not ask the LLM for search results

freitzkriesler2 2y ago

I'm sorry but LLMs notoriously provide inaccurate and otherwise awful information. Case in point, I asked an LLM what the last non cellular windows mobile classic PDA was. (I knew the answer) And it routinely got it wrong. This is what LLMs should be useful for. If I cant audit the results or very how it came to the conclusion the answer is useless. LLMs are toys at this juncture.

simonw 2y ago
That's a great example of the kind of prompt that I intuitively know wouldn't return a useful result... but I can't explain WHY I intuitively know that. Which is deeply frustrating.
mvkel 2y ago
Here are the results for that exact search in Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+was+the+last+non+cellular+windows+mobile+classic+PDA&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari https://www.google.com/search?q=what+was+the+last+non+cellul... vs 4o: The last non-cellular Windows Mobile Classic PDA was the HP iPAQ 110 Classic. Released in 2008, it ran on Windows Mobile 6.0 Classic and featured a 624-MHz Marvell PXA310 processor, 256MB of Flash ROM, and a 3.5-inch screen with a 240 x 320 resolution. It included Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity but lacked cellular capabilities, making it one of the final models in the declining PDA market as smartphones began to dominate [oai_citation:1,List of Windows Mobile devices - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Windows_Mobile_devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Windows_Mobile_devices) [oai_citation:2,The End of the Classic Version of Windows Mobile (AKA the PDA)](http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/commentary/end_of_WM_Classic.htm http://www.pocketpcfaq.com/commentary/end_of_WM_Classic.htm) [oai_citation:3,HP iPAQ 110 Classic - PDA Like It's 1999 - WiFi Planet](https://wi-fiplanet.com/hp-ipaq-110-classic/ https://wi-fiplanet.com/hp-ipaq-110-classic/). I know which version I'd prefer.
- qiqitori 2y ago
  What about the HP iPAQ 112 then? Wasn't the HP iPAQ 110 Classic released in November 2007? Also why are you entering questions into the Google search prompt?