3 ms·
Google has sources: the sites/URLs of the search results, some of which may be reputable or be the source itself. LLMs like Phind can cite parts of their outpu
by armchairhacker 2y ago
Google has sources: the sites/URLs of the search results, some of which may be reputable or be the source itself.
LLMs like Phind can cite parts of their output, but my understanding is they're prone to missing key details from or even contradicting the citations (the same issue as LLM "summaries" missing or contradicting what they're supposed to summarize), at least moreso than human writers (and surely more than reputable human writers).
- bflesch 2y agowhile I agree with the notion that sources should be given, current google search provides "old-school" search results only at the bottom of the page. first they give AI suggestions, special tabs with provenly-false content (see "john wick 5" drama in recent days), big blocks of ads. and then they show the results from websites which pay most for SEO. LLMs give more accurate results for many queries, and they also include knowledge from books / scientific papers / videos which are not included in the standard google search result pages. also LLMs have no ads. so there is net benefit for users to use LLMs for search instead of googling it. and I'd bet nowadays the percentage of false/outdated information is the same on both Google and LLM results.