3 ms·

If you do a web search and find a random blog post full of spelling errors and surrounded by ads, you're not going to trust that at the same level as a Stack Ov

by Gormo 1y ago

If you do a web search and find a random blog post full of spelling errors and surrounded by ads, you're not going to trust that at the same level as a Stack Overflow post with a hundred upvotes, or an article with a long comment thread on HN. But an LLM digests everything, and then spits out information with the same level of detail, same terminology, and same presentation regardless of where it came from. It strips away a lot of the contextual metadata we use to weigh credibility and trust. Sure, you can follow references from an LLM, but at that point you're just using it a fuzzier form of web search.

ngriffiths 1y ago
I agree and am perfectly happy using it as fuzzier web search, because it works really well for me. Finding references is often my main goal, but other times I just want some quick facts, in which case I'll be as thorough with checking as I would when reading a random blog with spelling errors.
- ngriffiths 1y ago
  Actually, someone should design one that can pull in quotes. Like as a separate tool the LLM uses to quote that has guarantees, it's just a copy and can't be hallucinated. Then you could see the primary info when it's needed/asked for, similar to articles
- Gormo 1y ago
  > I agree and am perfectly happy using it as fuzzier web search, because it works really well for me. Personally, I want the exact opposite: web search to go back to how it was 10-15 years ago, with deterministic search syntax, granular include/exclude syntax, boolean parsing, and absolutely no "did you mean?"s.
dakiol 1y ago
> Sure, you can follow references from an LLM, but at that point you're just using it a fuzzier form of web search. That's exactly the superpower, isn't it? Web search without having to dig deep around (especially now that Google's quality has declined over the years). Sure thing, LLMs are capable of more.

by Gormo 1y ago

ngriffiths 1y ago

I agree and am perfectly happy using it as fuzzier web search, because it works really well for me. Finding references is often my main goal, but other times I just want some quick facts, in which case I'll be as thorough with checking as I would when reading a random blog with spelling errors.

ngriffiths 1y ago
Actually, someone should design one that can pull in quotes. Like as a separate tool the LLM uses to quote that has guarantees, it's just a copy and can't be hallucinated. Then you could see the primary info when it's needed/asked for, similar to articles
Gormo 1y ago
> I agree and am perfectly happy using it as fuzzier web search, because it works really well for me. Personally, I want the exact opposite: web search to go back to how it was 10-15 years ago, with deterministic search syntax, granular include/exclude syntax, boolean parsing, and absolutely no "did you mean?"s.

dakiol 1y ago

> Sure, you can follow references from an LLM, but at that point you're just using it a fuzzier form of web search. That's exactly the superpower, isn't it? Web search without having to dig deep around (especially now that Google's quality has declined over the years). Sure thing, LLMs are capable of more.