3 ms·

If you want another side data point, most people I know both in Japan and Canada use some sort of an AI as a replacement for any kind of query. Almost nobody in

If you want another side data point, most people I know both in Japan and Canada use some sort of an AI as a replacement for any kind of query. Almost nobody in my circles are in tech or tech-adjacent circles. So yeah, it’s just everyone collectively devaluing human interaction.

vidarh 11mo ago
I love AI, but I'm exasperated by the extent to which my fiancee uses Claude instead of search, and for everything...
- throw-the-towel 11mo ago
  With what Google has become, I can't blame her.
- abustamam 11mo ago
  Why? Google search kinda sucks. And I find it helpful to provide context that I can't otherwise provide to any standard search engine.
  - vidarh 11mo ago
    Because the responses are often distilled down from the same garbage Google serves up, but presented as the opinion of Claude, whom she increasingly trusts. I use Claude a lot. I have the most expensive Claude Max subscription both for my own consultancy and at client sites, separately. I'm increasingly close to an AI maximalist on many issues, so I'm not at all against extensive use of these models. But it's not quick enough to of its own accord resort to verifying things before giving answers to be suitable as a general purpose replacement for Google unless you specifically prompt it to search.
    - abustamam 11mo ago
      > unless you specifically prompt it to search. Ah, that's a good call-out. I don't use Claude aside from in Cursor; I use ChatGPT for normal queries and it's pretty good about doing searches when it doesn't think it knows the answer. Of course it'll search when prompted, but it'll often search without prompting too. I just mistakenly assumed that your fiancée's usage of Claude implied Claude was actually searching as well.
    - rerdavies 11mo ago
      Google search results: a dozen sponsored links; a dozen links to videos (which I never use -- I'd rather read than watch); six or seven pages with gamed SEOs; if you're lucky, what you actually want is far down near the end of the first page, or perhaps at the top of the second page; the other 700 pages of links are ... whatever. Repeat for our five times with variously tweaked queries, hoping that what you actually want will percolate up into the first or second page. Claude: "Provide me links to <precise description of what you actually want". Result: 4 or 5 directly relevant links, most of which are useful, and it happens on the first query. Claude is dramatically more efficient than Google Search.
      - vidarh 11mo ago
        > Claude: "Provide me links to <precise description of what you actually want". Result: 4 or 5 directly relevant links, most of which are useful, and it happens on the first query. Which, as I pointed out, is not the point, as you're advocating exactly the kind of prompting I said wouldn't be a problem. It's not how she uses it.
  - mrgoldenbrown 11mo ago
    Google search sucks now because it's been targeted by the spammers and content farms. Before that happened it was pretty good. LLMs will eventually be poisoned the same way, whether by humans or other LLMs.
  - heavyset_go 11mo ago
    Garbage in, garbage out + chat bots will be monetized which means they will show you things their ad partners want you to see vs what you actually want.
- exe34 11mo ago
  frankly I've found even chat gpt free to be more useful when looking for something - I'd describe what I'm looking for, what are must-have features, what I definitely don't mean, etc and it'll suggest a few things. This has rarely led to not finding what I'm looking for. it's absolutely superior to Google search these days for things that have been around a while. I wouldn't check the news with it.
- giardini 11mo ago
  You'll likely be OK until Claude gets a penis. Then you're toast.
- HeavyStorm 11mo ago
  Just replacing one software with another... That's not really the issue, unless you're talking about hallucinations.
jimbokun 11mo ago
A more sophisticated replacement for search engines seems like one of the more positive use cases for chatbots to me. What am I missing?

vidarh 11mo ago

I love AI, but I'm exasperated by the extent to which my fiancee uses Claude instead of search, and for everything...

throw-the-towel 11mo ago
With what Google has become, I can't blame her.
abustamam 11mo ago
Why? Google search kinda sucks. And I find it helpful to provide context that I can't otherwise provide to any standard search engine.
- vidarh 11mo ago
  Because the responses are often distilled down from the same garbage Google serves up, but presented as the opinion of Claude, whom she increasingly trusts. I use Claude a lot. I have the most expensive Claude Max subscription both for my own consultancy and at client sites, separately. I'm increasingly close to an AI maximalist on many issues, so I'm not at all against extensive use of these models. But it's not quick enough to of its own accord resort to verifying things before giving answers to be suitable as a general purpose replacement for Google unless you specifically prompt it to search.
  - abustamam 11mo ago
    > unless you specifically prompt it to search. Ah, that's a good call-out. I don't use Claude aside from in Cursor; I use ChatGPT for normal queries and it's pretty good about doing searches when it doesn't think it knows the answer. Of course it'll search when prompted, but it'll often search without prompting too. I just mistakenly assumed that your fiancée's usage of Claude implied Claude was actually searching as well.
  - rerdavies 11mo ago
    Google search results: a dozen sponsored links; a dozen links to videos (which I never use -- I'd rather read than watch); six or seven pages with gamed SEOs; if you're lucky, what you actually want is far down near the end of the first page, or perhaps at the top of the second page; the other 700 pages of links are ... whatever. Repeat for our five times with variously tweaked queries, hoping that what you actually want will percolate up into the first or second page. Claude: "Provide me links to <precise description of what you actually want". Result: 4 or 5 directly relevant links, most of which are useful, and it happens on the first query. Claude is dramatically more efficient than Google Search.
    - vidarh 11mo ago
      > Claude: "Provide me links to <precise description of what you actually want". Result: 4 or 5 directly relevant links, most of which are useful, and it happens on the first query. Which, as I pointed out, is not the point, as you're advocating exactly the kind of prompting I said wouldn't be a problem. It's not how she uses it.
- mrgoldenbrown 11mo ago
  Google search sucks now because it's been targeted by the spammers and content farms. Before that happened it was pretty good. LLMs will eventually be poisoned the same way, whether by humans or other LLMs.
- heavyset_go 11mo ago
  Garbage in, garbage out + chat bots will be monetized which means they will show you things their ad partners want you to see vs what you actually want.
exe34 11mo ago
frankly I've found even chat gpt free to be more useful when looking for something - I'd describe what I'm looking for, what are must-have features, what I definitely don't mean, etc and it'll suggest a few things. This has rarely led to not finding what I'm looking for. it's absolutely superior to Google search these days for things that have been around a while. I wouldn't check the news with it.
giardini 11mo ago
You'll likely be OK until Claude gets a penis. Then you're toast.
HeavyStorm 11mo ago
Just replacing one software with another... That's not really the issue, unless you're talking about hallucinations.

jimbokun 11mo ago

A more sophisticated replacement for search engines seems like one of the more positive use cases for chatbots to me. What am I missing?