3 ms·

Of course the savvy are using LLMs now, but they’re also reckoning with two things: * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (becaus

Of course the savvy are using LLMs now, but they’re also reckoning with two things: * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (because it may or may not exist) * you can’t cite an LLM result It’s a useful tool, but it lacks certain utility features that a useful web + effective search has. Or had.

maximus_01 2y ago
100%. But gradually being solved as source links are being provided. If the source link is as good as what you’d find on Google anyway then you have a way better search experience and don’t really burn much extra time checking the LLM work
weberer 2y ago
Even without using LLMs, Duckduckgo is good at providing little widgets that just give you a straight answer. Try searching "150 usd to eur" or "Weather Philadelphia".
bigstrat2003 2y ago
> Of course the savvy are using LLMs now I don't think this is true at all. It is people prone to hype, or who are naive, who are using LLMs. The savvy know that a tool which you have to verify every single time (because it isn't deterministic and makes shit up) isn't actually saving you any effort.
- wwweston 2y ago
  The point that there’s effort involved in verification is an important one and definitely part of any thorough inventory of liabilities and advantages of LLMs. I am less convinced this means it’s always a wash (or worse). Sometimes it’s good to have something to start with. “You can’t edit a blank page” is a truism among fiction and non-fiction writers of all stripes for a reason. Of course, the quality of what you start with matters, and it matters more the less of an evaluatory mindset you come to your tools with. I know at least some earlier adopters have that mindset, but perhaps I’m too optimistic about how it generalizes.
lelanthran 2y ago
> * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (because it may or may not exist) You think that you don't have the check the link at the top of the page from a google search? In fact, last I checked, for every google search I do, I have literally hit the page down key before starting to read. > * you can’t cite an LLM result And you think you can cite the top search result from a google search?
- NegativeK 2y ago
  > And you think you can cite the top search result from a google search? I think the issue with LLM answers is that I often have to go to Google or something to check if the answer is right. Maybe it shaves some time off, but we're still back to the original problem.
- MrVandemar 2y ago
  Of course you can. The top search result from a Google search yeilds (eventually) a URL —a uniform resource locator— which is something that can be cited.

maximus_01 2y ago

100%. But gradually being solved as source links are being provided. If the source link is as good as what you’d find on Google anyway then you have a way better search experience and don’t really burn much extra time checking the LLM work

weberer 2y ago

Even without using LLMs, Duckduckgo is good at providing little widgets that just give you a straight answer. Try searching "150 usd to eur" or "Weather Philadelphia".

bigstrat2003 2y ago

> Of course the savvy are using LLMs now I don't think this is true at all. It is people prone to hype, or who are naive, who are using LLMs. The savvy know that a tool which you have to verify every single time (because it isn't deterministic and makes shit up) isn't actually saving you any effort.

wwweston 2y ago
The point that there’s effort involved in verification is an important one and definitely part of any thorough inventory of liabilities and advantages of LLMs. I am less convinced this means it’s always a wash (or worse). Sometimes it’s good to have something to start with. “You can’t edit a blank page” is a truism among fiction and non-fiction writers of all stripes for a reason. Of course, the quality of what you start with matters, and it matters more the less of an evaluatory mindset you come to your tools with. I know at least some earlier adopters have that mindset, but perhaps I’m too optimistic about how it generalizes.

lelanthran 2y ago

> * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (because it may or may not exist) You think that you don't have the check the link at the top of the page from a google search? In fact, last I checked, for every google search I do, I have literally hit the page down key before starting to read. > * you can’t cite an LLM result And you think you can cite the top search result from a google search?

NegativeK 2y ago
> And you think you can cite the top search result from a google search? I think the issue with LLM answers is that I often have to go to Google or something to check if the answer is right. Maybe it shaves some time off, but we're still back to the original problem.
MrVandemar 2y ago
Of course you can. The top search result from a Google search yeilds (eventually) a URL —a uniform resource locator— which is something that can be cited.