Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

algolia.com

111–120 of 427 posts

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#111
post #62

Au contraire, ChatGPT has already replaced search engines for me, at least for generalized knowledge searches. It provides better and more personalized answers to my questions than Google and is an excellent way to learn about new topics. It's not 100% accurate and can even be misleading, but that is hardly different than other search engines. Once more people catch on to how incredibly useful ChatGPT is its use will…

Also, in a further iteration, people could upvote and downvote results, or even parts of it, so that it learns what it knows and what it doesn't. If it just say "I don't know" for bad results or omit the bad parts, it would already improve things quite a bit. Doing so is quite simple, really.

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#112

They might not replace them, but it fulfills a role that Google could do previously. Try to find out what type of a spring is in a spring clamp using google? "What type of a spring is in a spring clamp?" Or use whatever query you want. The top 10 results won't tell me the answer. Ask ChatGPT. It'll tell you (spoiler: it's a tension spring or a torsion spring. It's not a coil spring.) 8 out of 10 Google results are tr…

> Ask ChatGPT. It'll tell you

Without any way for you to know if it's the right answer or not. Wow, so useful.

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#114

I remember when web search engines were new. And boy did they suck. You wouldn’t get what you wanted a lot of the time, and they were very finicky about the input query. These days you can just throw stuff at it like “that movie about the depressed guy with a plane engine that falls on their house” I’m not sure ChatGPT is going to replace search engines, but I’m confident that it is incredibly young and will evolve c…

In 2001-2003, browsers crashed every 5 minutes then and Google's search didn't crash nor freeze nor slow it due to not being covered in ads and popups (having only 1-3 ad results at the top of the page with green text was a massive improvement). On tech forums back then, people would say, "is this even sustainable?"

Microsoft search and the other ones were just "there was an attempt" tier and gave complete nonsense results. When Google debuted, it was the only time web search substantially improved. There were no other big innovations in web searches ever, from that day on.

> These days you can just throw stuff at it like “that movie about the depressed guy with a plane engine that falls on their house”

I have looked for obscure queries like yours for 10 years and have not found them. For example "that movie where police vehicles are dispatched and they all crash for seemingly no reason on the way to the scene". It just won't find it because nobody talked about it (in a manner that would cause words that stick out to match), simple. And now days it's even worse because it does that new "rounding" thing and gives me:

  - The 25 Best Police Movies of All Time
  - Dispatched (2014)
That first result simply contains nothing to do with my query other than the world "police" and "movie".

Now days when you try to use a web search, you can't be smart and search strings that are likely to be used by someone discussing your topic of interest anymore, because it will always "round" them. It will also look at each word as if they are the literal thing you are in search for. I don't know if it's still possible to search bodies of text to get around that, but I'm not sure if that feature even ever worked. Back in 2005 when all these people were raving about intitle: inurl: inbody: whatever, none of them worked consistently, and you would also get scolded for hacking if you used them "wrong". Even searching something like "powered by phpbb" got me banned or scolded once when I wasn't even using it for hacking but rather as a workaround to narrow my search to only forum websites.

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#116

They might not replace them, but it fulfills a role that Google could do previously. Try to find out what type of a spring is in a spring clamp using google? "What type of a spring is in a spring clamp?" Or use whatever query you want. The top 10 results won't tell me the answer. Ask ChatGPT. It'll tell you (spoiler: it's a tension spring or a torsion spring. It's not a coil spring.) 8 out of 10 Google results are tr…

> Ask ChatGPT. It'll tell you Without any way for you to know if it's the right answer or not. Wow, so useful.

thats one good thing about search you get multiple results and different opinions

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#117
post #6

...But ChatGPT's successors just might . I, for one, look forward to a future in which I can ask a digital assistant to find and summarize information on anything: "Computer, please find out how GPS works and explain it to me like I'm five years old." "Computer, what are the latest Covid-19 infection stats in my city?" "Computer, who is Claude Shannon and why is he important?" "Computer, what are the top three storie…

where will this data come from and how do you make money off it?

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#118

They might not replace them, but it fulfills a role that Google could do previously. Try to find out what type of a spring is in a spring clamp using google? "What type of a spring is in a spring clamp?" Or use whatever query you want. The top 10 results won't tell me the answer. Ask ChatGPT. It'll tell you (spoiler: it's a tension spring or a torsion spring. It's not a coil spring.) 8 out of 10 Google results are tr…

> Ask ChatGPT. It'll tell you Without any way for you to know if it's the right answer or not. Wow, so useful.

How is this any different than Google? The only thing Google exceeds at is serving you SEO garbage on every query.

Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon

#119
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that just indicates it's more blatant. With search engine results I can click through to the original source. That's attribution, at least to the laymen. ChatGPT has no such thing.

I selected a few sentences from the given response, asked DuckDuckGo to find them, and got zero hits for any of them. GPT definitely has some kind of internal model of things and how they relate to other things, and the capacity to express those relations in different ways. Whether this is functionally the same as the model in my head, or some analog to it, or if such descriptions are merely cute but misleading anthr…

> I selected a few sentences from the given response, asked DuckDuckGo to find them, and got zero hits for any of them.

Science.

Post reply on HN