171–180 of 609 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who double checks all of the information presented to me, from any source?
If what you say is literally true: yes, I think you probably are the only one!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except when search engines bury the thing you're obviously looking for under an entire page of sponsored ads, then that convenience argument starts to not hold up as well...
If LLMs aren't already doing this, they certainly will soon. And it'll be even more insidious and "invisible" than sponsored search results.
Ad-sponsored models are going to be dead as soon as people realize they can't trust output.
And because the entire benefit to LLM search is the convenience of removing a human-in-the-loop step (scanning the search results), there won't be a clear insertion/distinction point for ads without poisoning the entire output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you wanted to know more about a new programming language named “Frob” or a plane crash that happened today, couldn’t you use an LLM like grok? Or any other LLM that’s continuously trained on trending news?
How do I know the LLM isn't lying to me? AIs lie all the time, it's impossible for me to trust them. I'd rather just go to the actual source and decide whether to trust it. Odds are pretty good that a programming language's homepage is not lying to me about the language; and I have my trust level for various news sites already calibrated. AIs are garbage-in garbage-out, and a whole boatload of garbage goes into them.
Instead of the core of the answer coming from the LLM, it could piece together a few relevant contexts and just provide the glue.
I used to use DDG for syntax problems (so many programming languages....) and it usually sent me to SO.
Now I use DeepSeek. Much friendlier, I can ask it stupid questions without getting shut down by the wankers on SO. Very good
I still use DDG to interface with current events and/or history. For history DDG is primarily, not only, an interface to Wikipedia
I still prefer tranditional search engines over LLMs but I admit, its results feels worse than it has traditionally. I don't like LLMs for two reasons: * I can't really get a feel for the veracity of the information without double checking it. A lot of context I get from just reading results from a traditional search engine is lost when I get an answer from a LLM. I find it somewhat uncomfortable to just accept the a…
Am I the only one who double checks all of the information presented to me, from any source?
"What I tell you three times is true"
Sparktoro (no affilitation) had a post or video about this somewhere very recently.
With LLM being good enough, I go to LLM for what I used to go for Wikipedia and StackOverflow.
I was very surprised to hear this, and it made me wonder how much of traditional SEO will be bypassed through LLM search results. How do you leverage trying to get ranked by an LLM? Do you just provide real value? Or do you get featured on a platform like Chrome Extensions Store to improve your chances? I don't know, but it is fun to think about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you wanted to know more about a new programming language named “Frob” or a plane crash that happened today, couldn’t you use an LLM like grok? Or any other LLM that’s continuously trained on trending news?
It's just a different kind of data. Even without LLMs, sometimes I want a tutorial, sometimes I want the raw API specification. For some cases I absolutely prefer an LLM, like discoverability of certain language features or toolkits. But for the details, I'll just google the documentation site (for the new terms that the LLM just taught me about) and then read the actual docs.
I'm hard pressed to construction an argument where, with widely-accessible LLM/LAM technology, that still looks like:
1. User types in query
2. Search returns hits
3. User selects a hit
4. User looks for information in hit
5. User has information
F.ex. with the API example, why doesn't your future IDE directly surface the API (from its documentation)? Or your future search directly summarize exactly the part of the API spec you need?