I find it easier to recognize bullshit from its source vs an LLM's confident and well written regurgitation of it.
Which is not a good look for the Search teams/execs.
Probably the latter.
Like I said, not a good look for Search.
This is all very tragic. we built a magic network where we could stash all the worlds information and access it from anywhere, except its been trashed by people with sleazy motivations trying to get between us and what we'd like to see.
Most of the time it's quicker, sometimes it's just bad.
Imagine winning search by being the fastest and most accurate, then replacing it w/ constant hallucinated errors.
The argument is that there's so much garbage on the open web that clicking through to the source has a lower signal-to-noise ratio than the AI summary.
This rings very true in my experience.
I really think Google is making an error using such a lightweight model for the page. That's one of my only firsthand exposures to genAI, and it's awful. Use a decent model, or if that's too expensive don't put up a summary at all.
Now it's just speed. This is a grave error.
mistakes vary from "obviously wrong" to "looks vaguely correct, but the source states something different" to "looks plausible, but the cited page is completely irrelevant, the AI clearly made this up" Even for straight fact lookups, I've seen it cite pages and claim one number, and then i click through and the source matches the vague shape of the answer but has a different number.
Its just constant hallucinations. "thats a common problem, just change this <setting that does not exist> or set <option that does not exist>". Full gemini seems more capable, but whatever google is throwing at the top of their free searches is awful IME.
The relative effectiveness of the search is immaterial.
This is gross.
So I can’t understand how one would trust the summary but not what is being summarized.
My mother never used search. She found it too hard to manage. She uses Gemini all the time, it gives answers in her language and she does not need to type. She is incredibly happy.
My daughter talks to Gemini. The idea of going through links seems primitive to her.
The future of interface is chat/talking not going through clickbait.
I think schools should have some basic control on how kids can use AI but saying that they want to freeze the learning experience in 2020 is simply not right. It is like saying we wont allow whiteboards and markers.
People just really, really, really hate paying for stuff. Hell Google even lets you continue to use their services even if you block their ads. They're that generous, err, evil.
If anything they're losing far more money with AI.
NOT “do kids use AI?”
NOT “do professionals use AI?”
And not whatever other question we can conjure up. At the end of the day, if AI makes learning worse, then it doesn’t fucking matter how ubiquitous or awesome or cool it is. Because we’re sacrificing other skills that WE KNOW and have established that we need.
> Your public IP address as seen by external servers is 66.249.68.3 (or check your live details via ifconfig.me or What Is My IP Address).
The AI just hallucinates¹ an IP. (I.e., that is most definitely not my IP address.)
(¹it could possibly be invoking a tool here, I suppose. Either way, the answer is slop.)
I don't quite understand what this even means. I both use AI chatbots frequently and still use keyword-based search engines frequently as well. When I use keyword-based search engines, it's usually because I want to see what sort of websites, discussions, resources, online hangouts, etc. exist around a given term, or just how the term is used. I often don't have a specific question or task in mind and just kind of want to wallow in the search results for a while, sort of like if I moved to a new city and just wanted to walk around different neighborhoods. otoh when I use an AI chatbot, it's usually because I have a specific question to ask, and often I don't know what the relevant search terms would even be. The use cases seem fundamentally different and I don't know how one could be "more reliable" than the other.
It has been over a decade since Google Search was anything but a machine-learning powered word association engine. I miss old Google Search but it's dead and I trust Gemini more than what Search has turned into.