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

Perplexity Deep Research

perplexity.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#141

Post by viraptor »

xiphias2 wrote: post #121
CjHuber wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I don‘t get why everybody is saying Gemini is far behind. Like for me Gemini Flash Thinking Experimental performs far far better then o3 mini

o3 mini is still behind o1 pro, it didn't impress me. I think the people who think anybody is close to OpenAI don't have pro subscription

The $200 version? It's interesting that it exists, but for normal users it may as well... not. I mean, pro is effectively not a consumer product and I'd just exclude it from comparison of available models until you can pay for a single query.

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#142

Post by pphysch »

ankit219 wrote: post #72

Every time OpenAI comes up with a new product, and a new interaction mechanism / UX and low and behold, others copy the same, sometimes leveraging the same name as well. Happened with ChatGPT - a chat oriented way to use Gen AI models (phenomenal success and a right level of abstraction), then code interpreter, the talking thing (that hasnt scaled somehow), the reasoning models in chat (which i feel is a confusing UX…

OpenAI rushed out "chain of reasoning" features after DeepSeek popularized them.

They are the loudest dog, not the fastest. And they have the most to lose.

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#144

Post by hhh »

xiphias2 wrote: post #121
CjHuber wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I don‘t get why everybody is saying Gemini is far behind. Like for me Gemini Flash Thinking Experimental performs far far better then o3 mini

o3 mini is still behind o1 pro, it didn't impress me. I think the people who think anybody is close to OpenAI don't have pro subscription

o3-mini isn't meant to compete with o1, or o1 pro mode.

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#145

Post by kookamamie »

alexvitkov wrote: post #50

Every week we get a new AI that according to the AI-goodness-benchmarks is 20% better than the old AI, yet the utility of these latest SOTA models is only marginally higher than the first ChatGPT version released to the public a few years back. These things have the reasoning skills of a toddler, yet we keep fine-tuning their writing style to be more and more authoritative - this one is only missing the font and colo…

It is ridiculous.

Many of the AI companies ride on the hype are being overvalued with idea that if we just fine-tune LLMs a bit more, a spark of consciousness will emerge.

It is not going to happen with this tech - I wish the LLM-AGI bubble would burst already.

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#146

Post by gbnwl »

transformi wrote: post #10
simonw wrote: post #7

That's the third product to use "Deep Research" in its name. The first was Gemini Deep Research: https://blog.google/products/gemini/google-gemini-deep-resea... - December 11th 2024 Then ChatGPT Deep Research: https://openai.com/index/introducing-deep-research/ - February 2nd 2025 Now Perplexity Deep Research: https://www.perplexity.ai/hub/blog/introducing-perplexity-de... - February 14th 2025.

You forgot Huggingface researchers - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hugging-face-resea... and BTW - I post an exact same spirit comment an hour ago... So I guess Today's copycat ethics aren't solely for products- but also for comment section . LOL.

Said comment, so other's don't have to dig around in your history:

"Since google, everyone trying replicate this feature... (OpenAI, HF..) It's powerfull yes, so as asking an A.I and let him sythezise all what he fed.

I guess the air is out of the ballon from the big players, since they lack of novel innovation in their latest products."

I'd say the important differences are that simonw's comment establishes a clear chronology, gives links, and is focused on providing information rather than opinion to the reader.

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#147

Post by ErikBjare »

Kye wrote: post #102
qingcharles wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It failed my first test which concerned Upside magazine. All of these deep research versions have failed to immediately surface the most famous and controversial article from that magazine, "The Pussification of Silicon Valley." When hinted, Perplexity did a fantastic job of correcting itself, the others struggled terribly. I shouldn't have to hint though, as that requires domain knowledge that the asker of a query m…

My standard prompts when I want thoroughness: "Did you miss anything?" "Can you fact check this?" "Does this accurately reflect the range of opinions on the subject?" Taking the output to another LLM with the same questions can wring out more details.

I'd expect a "deep research" product to do this for me.

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#148

Post by jazzyjackson »

alexvitkov wrote: post #55
exclipy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true at all. The original ChatGPT was useless other than as a curious entertainment app. Perplexity, OTOH, has almost completely replaced Google for me now. I'm asking it dozens of questions per day, all for free because that's how cheap it is for them to run. The emergence of reliable tool use last year is what has sky-rocketed the utility of LLMs. That has made search and multi-step agents feasible, and by exte…

If your goal is to replace one unreliable source of information (Google first page) with another, sure - we may be there. I'd argue the GPT 3.5 already outperformed Google for a significant number of queries. The only difference between then and now is that now the context window is large enough that we can afford to paste into the prompt what we hope are a few relevant files. Yet what's essentially "cat [62 random f…

Perplexity with Deepseek R1 (they have the real thing running on Amazon servers in USA) is a game changer, it doesn’t just use top results from a Google search, it considers what domains to search for information relevant to your prompt.

I boycotted ai for about a year considering it to be mostly garbage but I’m back to perplexifying basically everything I need an answer fo

(That said, I agree with you they’re not really citations, but I don’t think they’re trying to be academic, it’s just, here’s the source of the info)

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#149

Post by kenjackson »

baxtr wrote: post #71
alexvitkov wrote: post #50

Every week we get a new AI that according to the AI-goodness-benchmarks is 20% better than the old AI, yet the utility of these latest SOTA models is only marginally higher than the first ChatGPT version released to the public a few years back. These things have the reasoning skills of a toddler, yet we keep fine-tuning their writing style to be more and more authoritative - this one is only missing the font and colo…

Just yesterday I did my first Deep Research with OpenAI on a topic I know well. I have to say I am really underwhelmed. It sounds all authoritative and the structure is good. It all sounds and feels substantial on the surface but the content is really poor. Now people will blame me and say: you have to get the prompt right! Maybe. But then at the very least put a disclaimer on your highly professional sounding dossie…

What was the prompt?

Re: Perplexity Deep Research

#150

Post by transformi »

2099miles wrote: post #109
transformi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot Huggingface researchers - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hugging-face-resea... and BTW - I post an exact same spirit comment an hour ago... So I guess Today's copycat ethics aren't solely for products- but also for comment section . LOL.

Your comment from earlier wasn’t as easy to digest as this one. I don’t think that person copied you at all.

Thanks. I accept the criticism of being less digest and more opinionated. But at the end of the day it provide the same information.

Don't get me wrong - I don't mind to be copied on the Internet :), but I find this behavior quite rude, so I just mentioned it.

Post reply on HN