rushingcreek

35 ms·

1. 421.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   Right, but you still have to click on those links manually and potentially scan lots of text yourself for relevancy. Our goal is to automate that.
2. 422.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   Thanks :) We actually do have a code generation model similar to CoPilot but it's not active yet on the backend. All of the code snippets you see are pulled from other websites.
3. 423.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   Thank you, the cleaned up version is helpful. We definitely have a lot of UX work to do :)
4. 424.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   I don't see a followup in the screenshot you provided. Again, we're definitely not perfect with followups, but we generally do capture context. It would be very helpful if you could tell us your original search query, your followu
5. 425.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   You're right -- we are all conditioned by Google. Yet, using Hello for my own technical searches these past few weeks, higher signal and lower noise is much better for me personally. At the end of the day, Justin and I are making the s
6. 426.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   Could you post which examples you tried? It's not perfect, but the "Ask a followup" feature is usually smart enough to use existing context to refine.
7. 427.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   This is exactly what we think. And yes, we definitely plan to do better with space efficiency
8. 428.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   Thanks for the feedback. We agree that speed is incredibly important, and we're working on making searches much faster. We'll be iterating on the UI/UX as well, as we think that we can definitely do better and be more efficie
9. 429.▲
   by rushingcreek 4y ago

   Our code extraction/ranking model hasn't been trained on that language yet, so it's definitely an out-of-domain example. We'll keep working on expanding our repertoire!
10. 430.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Thanks :) we'll take a look at better syntax formatting for the code snippets
11. 431.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Thanks for the feedback, we'll take a look at that :)
12. 432.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Our index is based on Bing as of right now -- if they give us low-quality results, our generated answers will be low quality as well. We're definitely aware of this and are working on developing our own index to augment Bing's in
13. 433.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Those articles are coming from Bing as of right now. Our offering is based on analyzing those articles and summarizing them/picking out the most relevant parts. We definitely plan to augment (and eventually replace Bing) with our own i
14. 434.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Thanks for the feedback. Could you post what queries you tried?
15. 435.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    You.com is too similar to Google imo; we go significantly further than they do in terms of synthesizing explanations. Same goes for snippets; on You.com, you usually need to click on a button (.e.g "Open Side Panel") to get a code
16. 436.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Because we're currently built on top of Bing's index, we're somewhat dependent on the raw pages they provide. If those pages don't mention graal, neither will our AI. Building out our own index is something we're wo
17. 437.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Query autocomplete is on the roadmap :)
18. 438.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Yep, the AI definitely prefers fully formed sentences as it is right now. We know it's important not to force users to change how they word their queries, so making it less sensitive for phrasing is a priority for us.
19. 439.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Thanks :) We've gone all-in on using our AI to answer questions based on information from multiple sources.
20. 440.▲
    by rushingcreek 4y ago

    Do you have Javascript enabled?
21. 441.▲
    by rushingcreek 5y ago

    There was a race condition leak with users sessions that has now been fixed.
22. 442.▲
    by rushingcreek 5y ago

    There was a race condition leak with users sessions that has now been fixed. It now gives a relevant answer for this question.
23. 443.▲
    by rushingcreek 5y ago

    It should be able to answer all of those. There was a backend issue which has since been fixed.
24. 444.▲
    by rushingcreek 5y ago

    Haystack could be a good starting point, but I evaluated it at the beginning and did not suit the project requirements. It's fine for managing the document store (I use Elasticsearch) but there needs to be article reranking/releva
25. 445.▲
    by rushingcreek 5y ago

    I was always curious about what search would be like if it was more conversational, so became interested in research about long-form question answering. As for performance, this is tricky because every search involves running multiple large
26. 446.▲
    by rushingcreek 5y ago

    Yep, the backend which runs the ML models is currently experiencing issues from the HN onslaught. Thanks for your patience, should be fixed soon.
27. 447.▲
    Show HN: Hello – A conversational search engine powered by transformers(beta.sayhello.so)

    28 points by rushingcreek 5y ago|24 comments
28. 448.▲
    Ask HN: What would make a next-gen search engine?

    18 points by rushingcreek 5y ago|24 comments