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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#281

Post by azinman2 »

trump2025 wrote: post #209

This might be unpopular opinion but it really isn't as big of a deal as OpenAI makes it out to be (like their previous announcements) The truth is, I haven't used ChatGPT at all since spring of this year. Claude's Sonnet 3.5 has replaced it. I pay very little attention to what OpenAI releases and simply waits for Anthropic to implement it. I also started using Gemini which already outperforms perplexity and this and…

OpenAI has the consumers. Anthropic has enterprise (or at least that’s the majority of their customers). OpenAI is better positioned to do so. Eye balls and brand are key.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#282

Post by santiagobasulto »

This is great news. But it gives me anxiety the fact that I'll keep accumulating chats on that left bar without any ways to manage them or search through them.

Today I was looking for an old (and useful) chat I had a few months ago and I had to export the whole chat history, wait for the zip file, and write a Python script to find what I was looking for :/

Re: ChatGPT Search

#283

Post by Pesthuf »

Bing search gets so much dumber when it searches the web that I've developed the muscle memory to append #nosearch to every prompt so that hopefully it won't. I just searches for unrelated stuff and then repeats random stack overflow answers to problems that have nothing to do with what I asked.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#284

Post by fmbb »

jtgverde wrote: post #253
freediver wrote: post #241

Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm? The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. C…

Great find on the knowledge navigator, I had never seen it but I was a toddler when it was released haha. It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away Is this time…

> It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away

40+ makes it sound like you think it will ever be achieved. I'm not convinced.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#285

Post by handfuloflight »

freediver wrote: post #263
duxup wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are a lot like Star Trek to me in the sense that you can ask a question, and then follow up questions to filter and refine your search, even change your mind. Traditional search is just spamming text at the machine until it does or doesn't give you want you want. That's the magic with LLMs for me. Not that I can ask and get an answer, that's just basic web search. It's the ability to ask, refine what I'm looking…

I agree that LLMs have opened modalities we didn't have before, namely: - natural language input - ability to synthesize information across multiple sources - conversational interface for iterative interaction That feels magical and similar to Star Trek. However they fundamentally require trustworthy search to ground their knowledge in, in order to suppress hallucination and provide accurate access to real time infor…

What solution is there besides choosing the sources you will ground your truth to? We are not going to transcend intermediaries when asking for answers from an intermediary.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#286

Post by wvenable »

freediver wrote: post #241

Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm? The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. C…

> Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm?

I think it's already compelling enough to replace the current paradigm. Search is pretty much dead to me. I have to end every search with "reddit" to get remotely useful results.

The concern I have with LLMs replacing search is that once it starts being monetized with ads or propaganda, it's going to be very dangerous. The context of results are scrubbed.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#287

Post by handfuloflight »

gmd63 wrote: post #270
freediver wrote: post #241

Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm? The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. C…

> Legacy ad-based search has devolved into a wasteland of misaligned incentives, conflict of interest and content farms optimized for ads and algos instead of humans. > Path forward requires solving the core challenge: actually surfacing the content people want to see, not what intermediaries want them to see These traps and patterns are not inevitable. They happen by choice. If you're actively polluting the world wi…

Do you equate AI generated with drivel?

Re: ChatGPT Search

#288

Post by eikenberry »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #271
freediver wrote: post #241

Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm? The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. C…

> In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. This also seems like a little ridiculous premise. Any confident statement about the real world is never fully reliable. If star trek were realistic the computer would have been wrong once in a while (preferably with dramatically disastrous consequences)—just as the humans it likely was built aro…

Star Trek had tech so advanced that they accidentally created AGIs more than once. Presumably they didn't show the fact checking as it was done automatically by multiple, independent AGIs designed for the task with teams of top people monitoring and improving them.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#289

Post by bckr »

handfuloflight wrote: post #285
freediver wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that LLMs have opened modalities we didn't have before, namely: - natural language input - ability to synthesize information across multiple sources - conversational interface for iterative interaction That feels magical and similar to Star Trek. However they fundamentally require trustworthy search to ground their knowledge in, in order to suppress hallucination and provide accurate access to real time infor…

What solution is there besides choosing the sources you will ground your truth to? We are not going to transcend intermediaries when asking for answers from an intermediary.

Might be time to go back to the encyclopedia business model

Re: ChatGPT Search

#290

Post by hmottestad »

andrewinardeer wrote: post #211
hmottestad wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Java I got: As of October 31, 2024, the latest version of Java is Java 23, released on September 17, 2024. The most recent Long-Term Support (LTS) version is Java 21, released on September 19, 2023. Which all seems correct and accurate.

This is because it is referencing and regurgitating Wikipedia articles.

Nope. It had found an Oracle page for the LTS date and an OpenJDK page for the latests version.
Post reply on HN