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

111–120 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#111

Post by lunar_mycroft »

nostrademons wrote: post #43
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from multiple sources, it can also get things wrong by combining information from different eras or just plain outdated advice.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…

You can ask them to cite their sources. It's very good practice to do so, and to check those sources, because I've found that about 30-40% of the time their source doesn't support their answer at all.

If I have to read the sources anyway, why not just have the model give me the links themselves? You know, like search engines already do?

Re: Google changes its search box

#112

Post by pclowes »

zemo wrote: post #47
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. yeah man good thing LLMs are structurally incapable of being incentivized to sell you a product or render referral links, this is surely future-proof

My thought here is that there are many. They have proven to be commodities in most use cases.

As soon as one gets annoying, expensive, advertiser heavy etc. you just rip it out and replace it with the other one. AFAICT there is zero lock-in or moat. I often am able to switch models in one click or command. This is why all the LLM providers are desperate for a product layer/comprehensive tool set.

Sure maybe they all end up that way, but there’s plenty of reasons corporate customers will want private LLM usage that is not skewed towards advertising. I am happy to pay for that.

Also, open source models are a bulwark against another search style ad Monopoly.

Re: Google changes its search box

#113

Post by dweinus »

So to make this profitable they need ads revenue from it, right? Imagine for a moment the ways AI can manipulate responses and conversations for marketers, because I guarantee the marketers have already thought about it.

Re: Google changes its search box

#114

Post by TitaRusell »

coldpie wrote: post #8
embedding-shape wrote: post #3

Basically people who want to search, will now not be able to, they'll be forced into a UI they might have consciously avoided, otherwise they'd be using their chatbot in the first place. Seems like a strange UX decision, rather than recommending "Hey maybe you want to try our chatbot", they just force the user into a chat straight up.

Makes sense to me. A chat UI has more avenues for subtle advertising & sentiment manipulation than plain links do.

Yeah just giving you the information/solution doesn't pay the bills. It's why supermarkets frequently change the layout of their aisles.

Never give the customers what they want give them what makes you money.

Re: Google changes its search box

#115

Post by SoftTalker »

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."

Since this is how Google makes all their money, why are they killing it off? Do they think people will eventually pay for LLM search? Do they plan to stuff the results with ads, not even sharing the ad revenue with the content sources?

Re: Google changes its search box

#116

Post by embedding-shape »

gnatolf wrote: post #95
embedding-shape wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you can express "Only show me websites run by Italian companies incorporated by Greece owners born in Turkey" for example, and it'll be able to filter through a bunch of stuff, just makes searching so much easier. Fuzzy-search is also on another level with language models.

Interestingly enough, precise search is on the way out.

Yeah, which makes no sense, talk about shooting yourself in the foot, but this is big tech, part of the process to irrelevancy I suppose.

Re: Google changes its search box

#117

Post by Melatonic »

embedding-shape wrote: post #3

Basically people who want to search, will now not be able to, they'll be forced into a UI they might have consciously avoided, otherwise they'd be using their chatbot in the first place. Seems like a strange UX decision, rather than recommending "Hey maybe you want to try our chatbot", they just force the user into a chat straight up.

Kagi all the way

Re: Google changes its search box

#119

Post by ignu »

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.

As someone who was getting information this way most of last year, I'm pretty sure I'll never want to again.

An increasing number of studies are indicating a reliance on "AI" leads to deleterious cognitive effects. I felt this acutely myself.

I've noticed a significant boost to my recall since shunning "AI" as much as possible.

Post reply on HN