Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

chatgpt.com

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#181
post #7

So, Google already does this, right? And most of the feedback I've seen is: "how the hell do we turn this off".

Have you used perplexity? It is very useful, I rarely google stuff any more.

I tried using it, results were often irrelevant to my queries or outdated. Maybe I was using it wrong, but I never got a useful search result out of it.

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#182
post #177
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... more vaporware? :( Whatever happened to that new voice interface they "announced" back in May? I wish companies would stick to "releasing" things rather than "announcing" them...

I've definitely been using it for more than a month now. My kid loves using it as an impromptu space knowledge pop quiz game with a simple system prompt. Maybe it's released to paid users only? The only thing missing from the original announcement is voice interrupting the ongoing response (well and the Scarlett Johansson voice)

That's the current voice mode, not the new "advanced voice"

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#183
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New models, not refinements on old models. You know what the OP was saying. Why the pedantry?

Aren't 'new models' always technically just refinements of old models? isn't that the point?

refinements = faster, cheaper

new = better, new use cases

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#184
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've definitely been using it for more than a month now. My kid loves using it as an impromptu space knowledge pop quiz game with a simple system prompt. Maybe it's released to paid users only? The only thing missing from the original announcement is voice interrupting the ongoing response (well and the Scarlett Johansson voice)

they've had voice to text to voice for a long time, the new thing was suppose to be a voice 2 voice transformer

yeah, exactly. It’s already available. Just open a ChatGPT 4o chat on the app and click the headphones icon on the lower right.

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#185
Do I really want my search experience boiled down to this boring overly white looking interface?

I understand that website quality has gone down with respect to ads, but this really doesn't make the internet very inspiring if all outputs come in this format.

At least with Google I get to visit someone's website, view their content in the way they have designed it and perhaps even take a look around.

Could just be my view given all I know its Search > Website > Content.

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they've had voice to text to voice for a long time, the new thing was suppose to be a voice 2 voice transformer

yeah, exactly. It’s already available. Just open a ChatGPT 4o chat on the app and click the headphones icon on the lower right.

Can you interrupt it with voice?

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they've had voice to text to voice for a long time, the new thing was suppose to be a voice 2 voice transformer

yeah, exactly. It’s already available. Just open a ChatGPT 4o chat on the app and click the headphones icon on the lower right.

That's still the legacy voice flow plugged on top of the new model. OpenAI has announced as such and it's very different than how the demos for the yet to be actually launched new voice mode work.

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever happened to that new voice interface they "announced" back in May? Yeah, and it was suddenly made just the day before Google announced their models... and do you remember Sora? That was in February.

The voice interface is present in the mobile apps. They know how to release to get press coverage.

The voice interface was pre-existing and not what was announced a few months ago.

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do things "the right way" (find sources, critically think about the info) in either (or other things like books), the common denominator is the person using the tool not going off the first thing they read from the tool as gospel.

I don't know how fully I agree with this, to be honest. Or, yes, I do - but we obviously outsource a lot to the tools we use. Rightly or wrongly we expect our search engines to source good sources and high quality information. And that has been sort of inbred into people through years of internet use. Degrading the quality of the output of tools that were once considered reliable and safe is going to create problems,…

Is that really unique to search engines vs every tool before and after them though?

Re: OpenAI Announces SearchGPT

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current search is great for facts, alright for generic questions, and annoying for answering something. AI has almost the inverse balance, pairing the two is a decent savings (and also what Bing/Google are trying to do from the opposite end of things). Whether this gets AI out of being a money pit remains to be seen.

> Current search is great for facts, alright for generic questions, and annoying for answering something. I feel like Google used to be pretty great at answering questions until they started pushing ads more aggressively into their results, and then intentionally gimping their results (for instance if you put quotes around a word Google will happily ignore it, whereas this used to actually be an enforced rule). I'm n…

What I mean by generic questions is traditional search is pretty alright (in the past and now) if you threw at it "how to set an arbitrary bit in a number". You get plenty of generic articles answering the question just fine, even if you have to scroll past some ads these days. If you were instead using quotes to get a specific answer to something you were doing like 'How to set the "18th bit" in a "u32" using "Zig"' then that's more what I meant by "answering something" without wanting to go piece together the answer from generic articles yourself then search does and has always really sucked (unless you're extremely lucky and some dude posted exactly that example out on the web). This is where LLMs shine, you can ask that question and get an exact answer for your scenario (plus the generic explanation of why it works if that's what you really want) without having to piece together sources yourself.

Misaligned incentives will of course make either side worse but search engines ~2010 were (and now still are) far from being good solutions for all types of queries, they were just closer to being good than anything else we had for them.

Post reply on HN