4 ms·
That's a non-sequitur, they would be stupid to run ab expensive _L_LM for every search query. This post is not about Google Search being replaced by Gemini 2.5
by moritzwarhier 2y ago
That's a non-sequitur, they would be stupid to run ab expensive _L_LM for every search query. This post is not about Google Search being replaced by Gemini 2.5 and/or a chatbot.
- canucker2016 2y agoGoogle placed its "AI overview" answer at the top of the page. The second result is this reddit.com answer, https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/32m611/logic_question_that_has_me_stumped/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/32m611/logic_question..., where at least the numbers make sense. I haven't examined the logic portion of the answer. Bing doesn't list any reddit posts (that Google-exclusive deal) so I'll assume no stackexchange-related sites have an appropriate answer (or bing is only looking for hat-related answers for some reason).
- moritzwarhier 2y agoI might have been phrasing poorly. With _L_ (or L as intended), I meant their state-of-the-art model, which I presume Gemini 2.5 is (didn't come around to TFA yet). Not sure if this question is just about model size. I'm eagerly awaiting an article about RAG caching strategies though!
- michaelt 2y agoYes, putting an expensive LLM response atop each search query would be quite stupid. You know what would be even stupider? Putting a cheap, wrong LLM response atop each search query.