Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Search

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#231

Post by itissid »

jsheard wrote: post #115
blixt wrote: post #108

One thing that is quite unfortunate with the state of SEO and the web in general today is that when I asked "what are the latest versions of common programming languages and when were they released?" a large amount of the sources were "13 Tools You Should Learn Now" and the like. This might be a solvable problem within the search API they provide to the LLM, but for now I wouldn't trust current LLMs to be able to fil…

Given how many of those SEO spam sites are themselves generated by ChatGPT now, OpenAI can simply back-reference their own logs to find out which sites are probably SEO spam while everyone else is left guessing. That's vertical integration!

Or offer two search results when they suspect one is spam and see which one a user likes and train off of that, just the way they do now with ChatGPT.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#232

Post by hintymad »

I'm curious how ChatGPT Search improves recall and reduce spams. I can see how LLM helps find the most relevant content. However, it is still hard to find the right content, especially in a domain that has tons of spams. For instance, when I search for a product review on Google, I get back many review sites that look so legit that I have hard time telling which ones are spammers.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#233

Post by cjf101 »

fulafel wrote: post #198
cjf101 wrote: post #183

If the current iteration of search engines are producing garbage results (due to an influx of garbage + SEO gaming their ranking systems) and LLMs are producing inaccurate results without any clear method proposed to correct them, why would combining the two systems not also produce garbage? The problem I see with search is that the input is deeply hostile to what the consumers of search want. If the LLM's are partic…

Garbage-ness of search results is not binary, the right question is: can LLMs improve the quality of search results? But sure, it won't end the cat and mouse game.

I think that's the right broad question. Though LLMs properties mean that for some number of cases they will either make the results worse, or more confidently present wrong answers. This prompts the question: what do we mean by "quality" of results? Since the way current LLM interfaces tend to present results is quite different from traditional search.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#234

Post by kadomony »

niam wrote: post #142

Genuine question: is there a present or planned value proposition for people like me who already have decent search skills? Or are these really for children/elders who (without making any normative claim about whether this is a good thing or not) can't be arsed to perform searches themselves? Does someone else have good search skills but mingle traditional search engines with LLMs anyways? Why? I use LLMs every day b…

I was skeptical of LLM search until I saw Arc Search in action with its "browse for me" functionality.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#235

Post by pton_xd »

The social engineering possibilities with a tool like this are endless. Google already wields enormous visibility power but ultimately just provides a list of links to other sources.

This can subtly (or not so subtly) rephrase and reshape the way we read about and think about every topic.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#237

Post by gauge_field »

msoad wrote: post #228
ryzvonusef wrote: post #217

https://x.com/sahir2k/status/1852038475606036577 > how tf is it reading private repos ?!

Wow! This is the real news here!

As one person pointed out in the thread, it also shows up on bing results, main repo, main.py file and releases page. But not on google. Edit: It also shows up on duckduckgo

Re: ChatGPT Search

#238

Post by hatthew »

cjf101 wrote: post #183

If the current iteration of search engines are producing garbage results (due to an influx of garbage + SEO gaming their ranking systems) and LLMs are producing inaccurate results without any clear method proposed to correct them, why would combining the two systems not also produce garbage? The problem I see with search is that the input is deeply hostile to what the consumers of search want. If the LLM's are partic…

Search engines tend to produce neutral garbage, not harmful garbage (i.e. small tidbits of data between an ocean of SEO fluff, rather than completely incorrect facts). LLMs tend to be inaccurate because in an absence of knowledge given by the user, it will sometimes make up knowledge. It's plausible to imagine that they will cover each other's weaknesses: the search engine produces an ocean of mostly-useless data, and the LLM can find the small amount of useful data and interpret that into an answer to your question.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#239

Post by layer8 »

pflenker wrote: post #203
niam wrote: post #142

Genuine question: is there a present or planned value proposition for people like me who already have decent search skills? Or are these really for children/elders who (without making any normative claim about whether this is a good thing or not) can't be arsed to perform searches themselves? Does someone else have good search skills but mingle traditional search engines with LLMs anyways? Why? I use LLMs every day b…

I find that my search skills matter less and less because search engines try to be smarter than me. Increasingly I am confronted with largely unrelated results (taking tweaked keywords or synonyms to my query as input apparently) as opposed to no results. So my conclusion is that the search engines increasingly see the need of search skills as an anti pattern they actively want to get rid of.

On the Google search results page, activate Search tools > All results > Verbatim. You can also create your own search provider bookmark with verbatim search as the default by adding “tbs:li=1” as a query parameter to the Google search URL.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#240

Post by kjellsbells »

paul7986 wrote: post #175
niam wrote: post #142

Genuine question: is there a present or planned value proposition for people like me who already have decent search skills? Or are these really for children/elders who (without making any normative claim about whether this is a good thing or not) can't be arsed to perform searches themselves? Does someone else have good search skills but mingle traditional search engines with LLMs anyways? Why? I use LLMs every day b…

I use GPT for things that would require multiple Google searches (research). Some examples.. - I count calories... eat out always and at somewhat healthy chains (Cava, Chipolte, etc). Tell GPT (via voice while driving to & or after eating) what ive eaten half the day at those places and then later for dinner. It calculates a calorie count estimation for half the day and then later at dinner the remaining. I have chec…

GPT is proving useful for me where something is well documented, but not well explained.

Case in point: Visual Basic for Applications (the Excel macro language). This language has a broad pool of reference material and of Stack Overflow answers. It doesnt have a lot of good explicatory material because the early 2000s Internet material is aging out, being deleted as people retire or lose interest, etc.

(To be frank, Microsoft would like nothing more than to kill this off completely, but VBA exists and is insanely more powerful than the current alternatives, so it lives on.)

Post reply on HN