20 ms·
Searching the web is a great feature in theory, but every implementation I've used so far looks at the top X hits and then interprets it to be the correct answe
by tcdent 2y ago
Searching the web is a great feature in theory, but every implementation I've used so far looks at the top X hits and then interprets it to be the correct answer.
When you're talking to an LLM about popular topics or common errors, the top results are often just blogspam or unresolved forum posts, so the you never get an answer to your problem.
More of an indicator that web search is more unusable than ever, but interesting that it affects the performance of generative systems, nonetheless.
- Almondsetat 2y ago>looks at the top X hits and then interprets it to be the correct answer. LLMs are truly reaching human-like behavior then
- yoyohello13 2y agoThe longer I've been in the workforce, the more I realize most humans actually kind of suck at their jobs. LLMs being more human like is the opposite of what I want.
- _heimdall 2y agoThat could very well be because the jobs are effectively useless. By no means does that mean the people are, nor is what the income allows them to do. But most jobs sure do seem pointless.
- homarp 2y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36373190 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36373190
- bravetraveler 2y agoThe work is mysterious and important
- pdimitar 2y agoBoth are true, separately in different situations. And sometimes both at the same time. There are a lot of useless employees out there. So, so much. And a ton of bullshit jobs as well.
- Workaccount2 2y agoIt's kinda like online games. Most people who play a game are not too great at it, a large subset is pretty good, and then it's smaller and smaller groups as the ability increases. At the top you get the people who are true pros, they write the books, the guides, they solve the hardest problems, and everyone looks up to them. But spin the wheel and get a random SWE to do some work? It's not gonna be far off from an random 1v1 lobby.
- PickledChris 2y agohttps://danluu.com/p95-skill/ https://danluu.com/p95-skill/ Continues to apply
- anal_reactor 2y ago> And for games like Overwatch, I don't think improving is a moral imperative; there's nothing wrong with having fun at 50%-ile or 10%-ile or any rank. But in every game I've played with a rating and/or league/tournament system, a lot of people get really upset and unhappy when they lose even when they haven't put much effort into improving. If that's the case, why not put a little bit of effort into improving and spend a little bit less time being upset? Interesting read, but I feel like the author could've spent just one more minute on this sentence. How good you are at given activity often doesn't matter, because you're mostly going to encounter people around your own level. What I'm saying is, unless you're at the absolute top or the absolute bottom, you're going to have similar ratio of wins to loses regardless whether you're a pro or an amateur, simply because an amateur gets paired with other amateurs, while a pro gets paired with other pros. In other words, not being the worst is often everything you need, and being the best is pretty much unreachable anyway. This can be very well extended to our discussion about SWEs. As long as you're not the worst nor the best, your skill and dedication have little correlation with your salary, job satisfaction, etc. Therefore, if you know you can't become the best, doing bare minimum not to get fired is a very sensible strategy, because beyond that point, the law of diminishing returns hits hard. This is especially important when you realize that usually in order to improve on anything (like programming), you need to use up resources that you could use for something else. In other words, every 15 minutes spent improving is 15 minutes not spent browsing TikTok, with the latter being obviously a preferable activity.
- jimbokun 2y agoUnfettered capitalism is pretty good at figuring out which is which. It’s pretty core to Elon Musk’s animating philosophy: get as many jobs as possible then see if there’s any negative impact. Not as appropriate in a government setting where the impact goes far beyond personal profit and loss.
- exe34 2y agoif a CEO can run 7 companies and still play monopoly with the ship of government, then maybe CEOs aren't really that useful.
- matwood 2y agoThe problem is defining negative impact and also timing. For example, I can stop doing backups and save time and money. There is zero negative impact right up until the point I need to use the backup, then the impact is catastrophic.
- Toenex 2y agoMaybe we already have Universal Basic Income, you just need to have a pointless job to collect it.
- ornornor 2y agoI never thought about it this way, but it does make sense.
- nyarlathotep_ 2y agoYES, this is exactly the case and why the Twitter layoffs and now the "DOGE" purge is a terrible thing (even in cases where it was totally legitimate to eliminate "waste"). "They had useless make-work jobs and sent 4 emails a week and watched TikToks the rest of the time" So? There's FAR too many people and nowhere near enough jobs for a large portion of people to do something that is both "real", and provides actual economic value. Far more important that people have some form of dignity and can pay to feed their families and live a life with some material standard. Anyone who's been in a corporate role knows there's loads of people that have a dubious utility and value--and people with "tech skills" are NOT exceptions to this rule, at all.
- mschuster91 2y agoWe don't just have "bullshit jobs" (which is an actual term these days), we have a "bullshit economy" as well - centered around advertising because without advertising most of the bullshit just wouldn't sell. Like, if you already got a car, you can drive it for 10-20 years easily, or more if you take well care of it. But advertising makes you think you "need" a new car every few years... because that keeps the economy alive. You buy a car and sell the old one to someone else who can't afford a new car but also wants a new one, so their old car goes off to Africa or whatever to be repaired until truly unrepairable. But other than the buyer in Africa who actually needed a new car, neither you nor the guy who bought your old car would have needed a car. And cars are a massive industry that employs many millions of people worldwide - so if you'd ban advertising for cars, suddenly the bubble would pop and you'd probably have a fifth of the size remaining, and most of it from China because the people in Africa can't afford what a brand new Western made car costs. Or Temu, Shein, Alibaba and godknowswhat other dropshipping scammers. Utter trash that gets sold there, but advertising pushes people to buy the trash, wear it two times and then toss it. A giant fucking waste of resources because our worldwide economy is based on the dung theory of infinite growth. It has worked out for the last two, three centuries - but it is starting to show its cracks, with the planet itself being barely able to support human life any more as a result of all that resource consumption, or with the economy and the public sector being blown up by "bullshit jobs". We need to drastically reform the entire way we want to live as a species, but unfortunately the changes would hurt too many rich and influential people, so the can gets kicked ever further down the road - until eventually, in a few decades, our kids are gonna be the ones inevitably screwed.
- eru 2y ago> But most jobs sure do seem pointless. Do you include the private sector? Why do corporations engage in this kind of charity? Do we need more competition?
- blackqueeriroh 2y agomost jobs are absolutely not useless. They might seem useless to you, but the work has to get done. Personally, I think that a receptionist as a building is useless, but I would be pretty pissed off if my packages kept getting stolen or I had to go get each one when it came at my place of business.
- isaacremuant 2y agoOr maybe just extremely inefficient due to the huge complexity of reality and how it hides a lot of the power dynamics and real decision making. Big entities are such that if you take it all down, you feel the side effect of output (maybe value, maybe something else) but if you take Hugh chunks, you might not feel much because they're so extremely ineffictive and value creation doesn't correspond with value received for the individuals that created it.
- throw10920 2y agoWhat's the evidence for "most"?
- h2zizzle 2y agoMany jobs are quite helpful and even necessary, if done for ~2 hours a day. They become "useless" in aggregate when they're forced to be minded by the same person for 8 hours (because of opportunity cost, effects on health well-being, etc., you end up "breaking even" or worse on QoL and net productivity). Overall economic productivity is high enough that a lot of positions could be split into 2 or 3 short shifts, at full pay - IF you don't factor in the various financial boondoggles that we've gotten ourselves wrapped up in. If you made the decision to wipe out a lot of these obligations (mostly to rich people), we could get to that kind of set-up, solvently.
- Paracompact 2y agoI imagine you're a fellow Graeberian. I feel the same way you do (and deeply so), but I don't have the confidence to give numbers, let alone such idealistic ones. How do you support your own numbers?
- adverbly 2y agoDo they suck at their jobs or do their jobs suck?
- shreezus 2y agoThis is why agentic AI will likely cause a cataclysim in white-collar labor soon. The reality is, a lot of jobs just need "OK" performers, not excellent ones, and the tipping point will be when the average AI is more useful than the average human.
- jimbokun 2y agoThe excellent performs are only one or two turns of Moore’s law away from the OK ones.
- freehorse 2y agoIf Moore's law is applicable in such a case, that is.
- agrippanux 2y agoI had a similar conversation with my CEO today - how does the incoming crop of college grads deal with the fact AI can do a lot of entry level jobs? This is especially timely for me as my son is about to enter college. So I ended up posing the question to Claude and the response was “figure out how to work with me or pick a field I can’t do” which was pretty much a flex.
- ornornor 2y agoParadoxically, the hardest jobs to automate are physical jobs it seems. A white collar worker is threatened by AI, blue collar not as much. I can totally envision AI software engineers (they’re already okay if you check their work), but as of yet there are no AI plumbers or mechanics. Maybe there won’t be, given the costs associated why producing physical machines vs software ones.
- metek 2y agoYour average white collar worker is certainly challenged, but I think the talent of neurodiverse people is going to become even more vital as average-ability people are more and more challenged. Of course, there's the saying: "A man is his own easiest dupe, because what he wishes to be true, he will generally believe to be true." and I'm neurodivergent, so it makes sense that my assumption that shit'll probably turn out okay for me is a foregone conclusion.
- wickedsight 2y agoUgh... I've been in IT for over a decade now and many of the vacancies I see, I don't consider myself/my CV good enough. Then I work with the people who get hired for these jobs and see how low they set the bar, even though their CV might tick all the boxes.
- CooCooCaCha 2y agoPeople suck at intellectual tasks but for stuff like locomotion and basic planning we humans are geniuses compared to machines. There isn't a robot today that could get in a car, drive the the grocery store, pick stuff off the shelf, buy it, and bring it back home. That's so easy it's automatic for us.
- bobxmax 2y agoIt's quite odd that people think of hallucinations as a dealbreaker for LLMs. Have they ever even met a human being?
- _carbyau_ 2y agoAnd when I find a human hallucinating at the job I absolutely need them to do, I avoid them where possible too! But honestly, LLMs are here to stay. I don't like them for zero verification + high trust requirements. IE when the answer HAS to be correct. But generating viewpoints and ideas, and even code are great uses - for further discussion and work. A good rubber duck. Or like a fellow work colleague that has some funny ideas but is generally helpful.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoThe problem is that human beings are far more likely to know what they don't know. And we build a lot of our trusting work environments around that feature. An LLM cannot know what it doesn't know by definition.
- theshackleford 2y ago> The problem is that human beings are far more likely to know what they don't know. I’ve spent a career dealing with the complete opposite. People with egos who can just not bare to admit when they don’t know and will instead just dribble absolute shit just as confidently as an LLM does until you challenge them enough that they just decide to pretend the conversation never happened. It’s why I, someone fairly mediocre have been able to excel because despite not being the smartest person in the room, I can at least sniff bullshit.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoYeah sure, some people do this. But average humans understand the limit of their knowledge. LLMs cannot do that. You can find the right person for a space where this knowledge of limitations is necessary. Can't find an LLM which does that
- nemo44x 2y agoEver heard the saying “good help is hard to find.”? It’s not bullshit, it really is.
- metek 2y agoI try to apply my layman's understanding of whatever law of thermodynamics states that a minimum of <x> percent of a reaction's energy is lost as waste heat; whatever you try to do in life, <x> percent of your effort is going to be spent dealing with people who are utterly incompetent. I try to apply it to myself as well; there's certainly many things I'm utterly helpless with and I want to account for the extra effort required in order to carry out a given task despite those shortcomings.
- matt_heimer 2y agoThe book Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach starts by talking about schools of thought on how to gauge if an agent is intelligent. I think it was mimicking human behavior vs behaving rationally which I thought was funny.
- lutusp 2y ago> The longer I've been in the workforce, the more I realize most humans actually kind of suck at their jobs. And if they don't suck at their job, they get promoted until they do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle .
- dstroot 2y agohttps://danstroot.imgix.net/assets/blog/img/comic2.png?auto=format%2Cenhance&fm=avif%2Cwebp&fit=max&w=3840&q=75 https://danstroot.imgix.net/assets/blog/img/comic2.png?auto=...
- pizza 2y agoIt would probably be really great for web searching llms to let you calibrate how they should look for info by letting you do a small demonstration of how you would pick options yourself, then storing that preference feedback in your profile’s system prompt somehow.
- rendaw 2y agoHere though they're not replacing a random person, they're replacing _you_ (doing the search yourself). _You_ wouldn't look at the top X hits then assume it's the correct answer.
- dartos 2y agoSplitting hairs, but LLMs themselves don’t search. LLMs themselves don’t choose the top X. That’s all regular flows written by humans run via tool calls after the intent of your message has been funneled into one of a few pre-defined intents.
- eddd-ddde 2y agoHow do you know? You could 100% create the tool to search and chose results, go through links, read more pages, etc.
- dartos 2y agoI know because that’s how these systems are built. I’ve built systems like it. If it was something brand new, Anthropic would be bragging hard about it. > You could 100% create the tool to search and chose results, go through links, read more pages, etc. That’s exactly what I’m saying. _YOU_ could build a tool that does that. The LLM essentially acts as an intent detector, not a web crawler.
- LightBug1 2y agoDegenerative AI ?
- wvh 2y agoBe careful what you call AI, you might just get what you wish for...
- johndhi 2y agolol
- ChrisRR 2y agoBold of you to assume that most people even bother googling simple questions
- mavamaarten 2y agoOh yeah this is very much the case. Every time I ask ChatGPT something simple (thinking it'd be a perfect fit for an LLM, not for a google search) and it starts searching, I already know the "answer" is going to be garbage.
- NavinF 2y agoTry their Deep Research or grok's DeepSearch. Both do many searches and read many articles over a couple of minutes
- lee-rhapsody 2y agoThe "Deep" search features hallucinate like crazy, I've found.
- NavinF 2y agoThat hasn't been an issue for me. Link to example?
- osigurdson 2y agoThat is interesting. I have often been amazed at how good it is at picking up when to search vs use its weights. My biggest problem with ChatGPT is the horrendous glitchyness.
- spoaceman7777 2y agoI have in my prompt for it to always use search, no matter what, and I get pretty decent results. Of course, I also question most of its answers, forcing it to prove to me that its answer is correct. Just takes some prompt tweaking, redos, and followups. It's like having a really smart human skim the first page of Google and give me its take, and then I can ask it to do more searches to corroborate what it said.
- Tycho 2y agoIt’s good if it hits on high quality sources like ons.gov.uk
- magackame 2y agoGoogle search is crap. It seems to be a sentiment among many HNers, but is it really that bad? I mostly use it for programming, so documentation/forums and it works out greatly. For some queries it even returns personal blogs (which people seem to bash google for not happening). Of course there are some queries that return purely AI blogspam, but reformatting the query with a bit more thought usually solves it. I wonder if that is a US thing? Do search results differ greatly based on the region?
- Beijinger 2y agoIs google search bad? Click here to find ten reasons why it is bad and 10 reasons why you should still use it. Yes, it is that bad. Website of Nike? Website of Starbucks? Likely position number one. Every product, category etc., e.g. what rice cooker should I buy? Is diseased by link and affiliate spam. There is a reason why people put +reddit on search terms.
- rustc 2y agoWhat kind of results does Kagi give for "What rice cooker should I buy?"? (Not asking you specifically, but if any Kagi user could compare.)
- nicoty 2y agoCopied verbatim from the AI generated summary: To choose the best rice cooker, consider these factors: Top Brands: Zojirushi is often considered the best brand, with Cuckoo and Tiger as close contenders. Aroma is considered a good budget brand 1. Types: Basic on/off rice cookers: These are good for simple white or brown rice cooking and are usually affordable and easy to use 2. Considerations: When buying a rice cooker, also consider noise levels, especially from beeping alerts and fan operation 3. Specific Recommendations: Yum Asia Panda Mini Advanced Fuzzy Logic Ceramic Rice Cooker is recommended for versatility 4. Yum Asia Bamboo rice cooker is considered the best overall 5. Russell Hobbs large rice cooker is a good budget option 5. For one to two people, you don't need a large rice cooker unless cost and space aren't a concern 6. Basic one-button models can be found for under $50, mid-range options around $100-$200, and high-end cookers for hundreds of dollars 6. References What is the best rice cooker brand ? : r/Cooking - Reddit www.reddit.com The Ultimate Rice Cooker Guide: How to Choose the Right One for Your Needs www.expertreviewsbestricecooker.com Best Rice Cooker UK | Posh Living Magazine posh.co.uk Best rice cookers for making perfectly fluffy grains - BBC Good Food www.bbcgoodfood.com The best rice cookers for gloriously fluffy grains at home www.theguardian.com Do You Really Need A Rice Cooker? (The Answer Is Yes.) - HuffPost www.huffpost.com
- kelseyfrog 2y agoSearch engines now have an incentive to offer a B2B search product that solves the blogspam problem. Don't worry, the AIs will get good search results, and you'll still get the version that's SEOed to the point of uselessness.
- HankWozHere 2y agoKagi Assistant allows you to do search with LLM queries. So far I feel it bears reliable results. For instance - I tried couple of queries for product suggestions and came back with some good results. Whilst it’s a premium service , I find the offering to be of good value.
- hooli_gan 2y agoDoes it just start a search or does the chat continue with the results? Would be cool to continue the chat with result, which were filtered acording to the blacklist.
- lemming 2y agoThe chat continues with the results, and I often explicitly tell it "search to make sure your answer is correct" if I see it making stuff up without actually searching. I use it multiple times a day for all sorts of things.
- chrisweekly 2y agoYeah, Kagi's search results are so much better than Google's, it defies comparison.
- rglover 2y agoJust switched my default to Kagi based on this comment and you're right. It honestly feels like old-school Google before all of the algo changes.
- hibikir 2y agoImagine how much fun it will be when the breakthrough in search engine quality comes from companies building a better engine to get good LLM answers. This is ultimately google's problem: They are making money from the fact that the page is now mostly ads and not necessarily going to lead to a good, quick answer, leading to even more ads. They probably lose money if they make their search better
- GraffitiTim 2y agoExa (YC S21) is trying to solve this problem by re-indexing the web in an LLM-friendly way.
- ipaddr 2y ago2021? how are they doing?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoFor me LLMs have basically removed any need to visit search engines. I was already not using Google due to how bad its interface had become, but I feel like LLMs at least are more efficient as an interface even if they’re still looking at the same blogspam or unresolved forum posts. My anecdotal experience though, is that I get better answers from LLMs, perhaps because I am able to give them really detailed prompts that seem to improve the answers based how specific I get. Generic search engines don’t seem to do that, in my experience.
- wenc 2y agoI just tried Claude’s web search. It works pretty well. I’m not sure if Claude does any reranking (see Cohere Reranker) where it reorders the top n results or just relies on Google’s ranking. But a web search that does re-ranking should reduce the amount of blogspam or incomplete answers. Web search isn’t inherently a lost cause.
- PStamatiou 2y agoCould not agree more. I wrote in detail about some of these issues last week https://paulstamatiou.com/browse-no-more https://paulstamatiou.com/browse-no-more
- johntb86 2y agoI've found that OpenAI's Deep Research seems to be much better at this, including finding an obscure StackOverflow post that solved a problem I had, or finding travel wiki sites that actually answered questions I had around traveling around Poland. However it finds its pages, they're much better than just the top N Google results.
- dontlikeyoueith 2y agoThey're probably doing RAG on a huge chunk of the internet, i.e. they built their own task-specific search engine.
- wongarsu 2y agoGrok's DeepSearch and DeeperSearch are also pretty good, and you can look at their stream of thought to see how it reaches its results. Not sure how OpenAIs version works, but grok's approach is to do multiple rounds of searches, each round more specific and informed by previous results
- labrador 2y agoMy disgust and hatred for Elon Musk prevents me from giving Grok a fair chance. I realize this is my psychological problem. I own it, but as far as I can tell, I'm not missing much.
- wongarsu 2y agoPurely on its technical merits Grok is pretty good and fills a niche in the selection of AI agents. But I can absolutely understand not wanting to use an AI owned by somebody who makes Nazi salutes and is dismantling the US government.
- labrador 2y agoI'm positive there are great people working at X, xAI, Tesla and SpaceX who are suffering every day through no fault of their own, hoping that Musk will come to his senses. Tesla right now is an especially tragic case for those whose livelihood depended on it doing well.
- colordrops 2y agoUgh, what a nightmare, now search engines are going to start optimizing for bots.
- taude 2y agoDo you think that if it's a non-Google company, that maybe doesn't rank search by ad payment $$$, that this new company could in theory do a better job?
- Xenoamorphous 2y agoIs there any viable alternative to pass knowledge to the LLMs that goes beyond their training cut off date?
- jonny_eh 2y agoVia their context window, but new knowledge could easily fill it up.
- macrolime 2y agoDeep search/deep research in grok, chatgpt, perplexity etc works much better. It can also do things like search in different languages. Wonder about something in some foreign country? Ask it to search in the local language and find things you won't find in English.
- wickedsight 2y ago> Ask it to search in the local language and find things you won't find in English. Yeah, this is one of my favorite use cases. Living in Europe, surrounded by different languages, this makes searching stuff in other countries so much more convenient.
- tntxtnt 2y ago[dead]
- oytis 2y agoWell, they are professionals, they sure add "reddit" to every query.
- elliotrpmorris 2y agoLol so true
- lairv 2y agoOverall LLMs (that I've tested) don't know how to use a search engine, their queries are bad and naive, probably because the way to use a search engine isn't part of training data, it's just something that people learn to do by using them. Maybe Google has the data to make LLMs good at using search engines but would it serve their business?
- osigurdson 2y agoMy experience with ChatGPT is really good. I find standard web searches very annoying now.
- MuffinFlavored 2y ago> the top results are often just blogspam top results are blogspam but the LLM isn't? /s
- chairmansteve 2y agoIt needs to use Kagi.
- PetahNZ 2y agoIt would be nice if I could tell it what page to look at (maybe you can, I am not sure). Often if I am getting an LLM to write some code that I can see is obviously wrong, I would love to say here is the docs ... use that to formulate your response.
- sky2224 2y agoIt's kind of surprising to me that I can't customize the search ability at all with a lot of models (at least I wasn't really able to last time I checked). Would providing a blacklist to the model really be that hard? Actually, it's astounding to me that companies haven't created a more user friendly customization interface for models. The only way to "customize" things would be through the chat interface, but for some reason everyone seems to have forgotten that configuration buttons can exist.
- grapesodaaaaa 2y ago> Actually, it's astounding to me that companies haven't created a more user friendly customization interface for models. To be fair, LLM technology in its current form, is still relatively new. I would also like to see what you are suggesting, though.
- johnisgood 2y agoYeah, this is why I almost never enable the search feature. Hopefully Claude (I have not tried) has a way of disabling it.
- tymonPartyLate 2y agoThis is actually not true. I'm getting traffic from ChatGpt and Perplexity to my website which is fairly new, just launched a few months ago. Our pages rarely rank in the top 4, but the AI answer engines mange to find them anyways. And I'm talking about traffic with UTM params / referrals from chatgpt, not their scraper bots.
- ForTheKidz 2y agoIf chatgpt is scraping the web, why can they not link tokens to source of token? being able to cite where they learned something would explode the value of their chatbot. At least a couple of orders of magnitude more value. Without this chatbots are mostly a coding-autocomplete tool for me—lots of people have takes, but it's the tying into the internet that makes a take from an unknown entity really valuable. Perplexity certainly already approximates this (not sure if it's at a token level, but it can cite sources. I just assumed they were using a RAG.)
- DonHopkins 2y agoThat's asking for the life stories and photos and pedigrees and family histories of all the chickens that went into your McNuggets. It's just not the way LLMs work. It's an enormous vat of pink slime of unknown origins, blended and stirred extremely well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_slime
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- currymj 2y agoyou sort of can do (a decent approximation of) this, it’s just even the approximate version is impractical for computational reasons. https://www.anthropic.com/news/influence-functions https://www.anthropic.com/news/influence-functions
- UnreachableCode 2y ago> web search is more unusable than ever I’m curious why I’m seeing a lot of people thinking this lately. Google definitely made the algorithm worse for customers and better for ads, but I’m almost always able to find what I’m looking for in the working day still. What are other people’s experiences?
- input_sh 2y agoThis about sums it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1hsf0to/just_watched_john_wick_4_did_a_quick_search_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1hsf0to/...
- cudgy 2y agoAI results typically blow away Google results in both quality and definitely speed. For example, when searching for product information, Google results in top 50 to 100 listed items titled “the 10 best …“ full of vapid articles that provide little to no insight beyond what is provided in a manufacturers product sheet. Many times I have to add “Reddit” to my search to try and find real opinions about a product or give up and go to Youtube review videos from trusted sources. For technical searches like programming questions, AI is basically immediately nailing most basic questions while Google results require scanning numerous somewhat related results from technical discussion forums, many of which are outdated.
- vbezhenar 2y agoMy experience is that Google works perfectly for me and I almost never have any issues with it, despite all the doomsaying.
- collyw 2y agoIsn't that the same as any place (like here for example), that uses an up-voting system?
- ryukoposting 2y agoI reiterate: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42012631 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42012631 RAG was dead on arrival because it uses the same piss-poor results a human would, wrapped in more obfuscation and unwanted tangents. My question is why the degradation of search wouldn't affect LLMs. These chatbot god-oracle businesses are already unprofitable because of their massive energy footprint, now you expect them to build their own search engine in-house to try to circumvent SEO spam? And you expect SEO spam to not catch up with whatever tricks they use? Come on, people.
- andai 2y ago>top results are blogspam It gets even better. When I first tested this feature in Bard, it gave me an obviously wrong answer. But it provided two references. Which turned out to be AI generated web pages. Oddly enough in my own Googles I could not even find those pages in the results.
- dspillett 2y ago> Bard […] it provided two references. Which turned out to be AI generated web pages. Welcome to the Habsburg Internet.
- bambax 2y ago"Searching" doesn't mean much without information about the ranking algorithm or the search provider, because with most searches there will be millions of results and it's important to know how the first results have been determined. It's amazing that the post by Anthropic doesn't say anything about that. Do they maintain their own index and search infrastructure? (Probably not?) Or do they have a partnership with Bing or Google or some other player?
- yorkeccak 2y agofounder here. solved this problem. old news mate. https://exchange.valyu.network https://exchange.valyu.network
- yorkeccak 2y agoAI-native search api to retrieve over web/proprietary content - full semantic search (e.g. we indexed all of arxiv), reranking built in, simple pricing, cheap
- zk108 2y agoWe’re giving away free credits to try out our platform — no card required. If you’re building with AI and need quality data, we’d love your feedback!
- HlessClaudesman 2y agoIf only search engines weren't also in the business of inserting unverifiable AI assertions into our information ecosystem.
- darkhorse13 2y agoThis is basically AGI because that's what we humans do.