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

Google changes its search box

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#71

Post by skybrian »

imoverclocked wrote: post #37

I don't trust facts from LLMs. When I am searching for something, I usually want to find primary sources. As soon as a number is involved, I do my best to not even look at the AI output. Even though the result is often good and combines information from multiple sources, it can also get things wrong by combining information from different eras or just plain outdated advice. AFAICT, without primary sources, the result…

Sometimes I use chatgpt thinking mode for searches when I expect there will be a lot of noise. "What are some in-depth reviews for "

Have you tried explicitly asking for links to primary sources?

Re: Google changes its search box

#74

Post by CrzyLngPwd »

I imagine that they have made this decision based on the search queries people use, and now have the compute to make better sense of them.

We'll see if it works. I use chatgpt for complex queries, and for throaway ones I use just don't log in to it.

I wouldn't use google for the same queries, since I normally use google to find specific things, not for a chatbot.

Re: Google changes its search box

#76

Post by CooCooCaCha »

munk-a wrote: post #33
CooCooCaCha wrote: post #19

I think this will be one of those things that the hacker news crowd lambasts and calls a mistake but will either be neutral or seen as a positive to your average user.

I think you underestimate how many users loathe that "Generated with AI" box. But for me the bigger question is why they're going all in on this instead of a gradual rollout or a new tool offering.

I think people are sick of hearing about AI but they’ll embrace this change for the simple reason that they hate computers and want to feel like they’re taking to a human.

Re: Google changes its search box

#77

Post by neilv »

Often, if you visit a few of the top PageRank-ish search hits for a query, you can find where the "AI" answer was mostly plagiarized from...

(For example, a random Redditor once said something, and the AI repeats it confidently and authoritatively, as if it is universal truth widely accepted by experts and applicable to the query.)

Re: Google changes its search box

#78

Post by zkmon »

pclowes wrote: post #22

I understand why they are doing this. My Google search usage is easily down 50%+. I doubt I am unique here. While there are times where I want pure search (Kagi, Old Google) I mostly use LLMs to search now and have them provide me links for source data. When I do use LLMs as a search engine I always want it integrated into my AI workflows with access to tools and scripts etc. I never want to have a conversation with…

> I never want to have a conversation with a website that is geared towards advertising me products.

The advertisements fed the content, which fed the AI, which in turn feeds your AI workflows. AI is still not trusted unless it's output is grounded with sources.

Re: Google changes its search box

#79

Post by hnsr »

notatoad wrote: post #52

>Google’s AI Overviews will also allow users to ask follow-up questions in AI Mode, beginning Tuesday, the company noted. have i been A/B tested into something, or has this been live for months? this doens't seem new.

Yeah, I've also already seen this for at least ~2 months

Re: Google changes its search box

#80

Post by snailmailman »

ivraatiems wrote: post #27
pclowes wrote: post #22

I understand why they are doing this. My Google search usage is easily down 50%+. I doubt I am unique here. While there are times where I want pure search (Kagi, Old Google) I mostly use LLMs to search now and have them provide me links for source data. When I do use LLMs as a search engine I always want it integrated into my AI workflows with access to tools and scripts etc. I never want to have a conversation with…

I'm not at all in the same boat as you; I do not and likely will never primarily rely on LLMs for information. But it's fascinating to hear that even folks who do don't find this approach useful.

LLMs are so frequently inaccurate its crazy to think of it fully replacing search.

I've been trying to use LLMs for things and it makes mistakes all the time. Just this week i had multiple instances of various LLMs basically saying "just run the software with --flag-that-fixes-your-problem" or "edit the config and add solve-your-issue=true" hallucinating non-existant options. Even if i manually link the relevant documentation pages it will still just make basic mistakes. and if im having to read the documentation myself anyway to fix the AI's mistakes, why is the AI even in the loop.

its infecting search too, because blogspam/slop articles are managing to make their way into search results by just making up untrue information, claiming software can do things it cant, or has options that don't exist.

Post reply on HN