ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
231–240 of 427 posts
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#232The main argument of this article is: 1. ChatGPT gets tripped up in some edge conditions. 2. Search engines provide some interesting features that ChatGPT doesn't. These are both bad assumptions looking forward: 1. It's evident that ChatGPT or other chat-based text generation will only improve over time. These kinds of quirky edge cases will _always_ exist, but will be harder and harder to contrive. 2. These sorts of…
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#233I am absolutely sure that if Chatgpt created a google like interface on a domain like askme.com. without a required login, it would become immensely popular. Possibly eating away a lot from traditional search engines. Google search is becoming the new Yahoo. Its becoming bloated if not already. And its just time for a new era in which a chatgpt like product perfectly fits.
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT struggled to tell me how to pin the bottom of a div to the bottom of its parent when scrolling (like a chat window does). It gave me the first thing that I tried (which is wrong). Eventually I figured it out, then confronted ChatGPT about it and it insisted on the wrong answer, and blithely dismissed the correct answer.
I've been trying to get ChatGPT to solve pretty basic calculus questions and it is often either totally wrong or wrong in some tiny detail. I got into an argument over dimensional analysis a few weeks ago where it felt like it was gaslighting me.
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agree. I wish Google was able to fix spam instead of trying to be something else than a search engine. The cynic in me thinks that Google is doing it because it’s more profitable. If the results are crap, maybe ads are a better content? it’s not like you are going to use Bing?
I don't even understand why Google doesn't allow blocking some sites in search results. Paid ads, I understand, these generate profits. Although Facebook still allow me to remove some ads that I don't want to see. But unpaid SEO rubbish, how does it benefit Google at all? If anything these parasites bogs down the quality of search results
First, I'd bet that very few people are actually interested in doing that kind of manual curation or engaging with power user features. How large a % of users need to interact with this for the feature to be worth maintaining (in all the backends and frontends)? How many of them actually do so?
Second, the task of blocking spam is adversarial and sisyphean. Trying to deal with web spam by domain blocking (with an individual blocklist) would be like trying to deal with email spam with your own blocklist of spam words. The results will be worse than whatever can be done centrally, where much more information is available both on the sites and on how users actually interact with those domains. And even if you managed to make a good blocklist for a point in time, your job is not done. Tens of thousands of new domains will have popped out next week.
(The dream here of course would be to use the block decisions from individual users to drive the centralized protections. But unless legit users are actually using this in very significant numbers, it'll quickly become just another abuse surface. E.g. brigading, "downrank your competitor in the results" as a service, etc.)
Third, some people will probably block domains they shouldn't have blocked, and then have a bad user experience in future searches as the sites with genuinely best results is blocked. And then you're only left with only bad options: ignoring the users' stated preferences which they'll hate, or serving bad results that they'll also hate.
Can the feature work for a different search engine? Sure. For example, what if you have a paid search engine only used by power users and are looking for a simple to explain feature that people think they want to entice them to sign up? It'll be great for that. And if your entire user base actually loves and uses the feature? Well, it becomes a feature worth maintaining and expanding; it'll actually be a high quality ranking signal rather than something that's trivially gameable; etc.
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#236Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#237Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#238The main argument of this article is: 1. ChatGPT gets tripped up in some edge conditions. 2. Search engines provide some interesting features that ChatGPT doesn't. These are both bad assumptions looking forward: 1. It's evident that ChatGPT or other chat-based text generation will only improve over time. These kinds of quirky edge cases will _always_ exist, but will be harder and harder to contrive. 2. These sorts of…
No. ChatGPT has no idea of the truth value of anything it produces. That's fine for writing fiction, but it's not an "edge condition" when searching for actual information.
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#239The main argument of this article is: 1. ChatGPT gets tripped up in some edge conditions. 2. Search engines provide some interesting features that ChatGPT doesn't. These are both bad assumptions looking forward: 1. It's evident that ChatGPT or other chat-based text generation will only improve over time. These kinds of quirky edge cases will _always_ exist, but will be harder and harder to contrive. 2. These sorts of…
Re: ChatGPT won’t replace search engines any time soon
#240That’s the kind of engagement that people go for and ChaptGPT is a seamless next step