281–290 of 504 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you have the source as proof. But that says a lot about Perplexity. Does Perplexity actually give you a clickable link like ChatGPT does?
It gives you clickable links to a half dozen or so sources. It's not clear which of the information comes from source 1 vs source 2, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course the savvy are using LLMs now, but they’re also reckoning with two things: * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (because it may or may not exist) * you can’t cite an LLM result It’s a useful tool, but it lacks certain utility features that a useful web + effective search has. Or had.
> * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (because it may or may not exist) You think that you don't have the check the link at the top of the page from a google search? In fact, last I checked, for every google search I do, I have literally hit the page down key before starting to read. > * you can’t cite an LLM result And you think you can cite the top search result from a google search?
I think the issue with LLM answers is that I often have to go to Google or something to check if the answer is right. Maybe it shaves some time off, but we're still back to the original problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The web is just as “open” as it ever was. It is just as easy if not more so to create and host your own content. You’re complaining about “discoverability” which hasn’t been easy since 2000. The most successful independent writer today is probably Ben Thompson’s “Stratechery” https://stratechery.com/about/ https://blockbuster.thoughtleader.school/p/how-ben-thompson-... Through organic search, you probably won’t find…
Walled gardens like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and others are the missed opportunities for the Open Web. Google nor any other search engine can't crawl their information, so Web users who are not on the aforementioned sites are missing a lot of useful information and social dynamics that would otherwise take place on the Open Web.
Google very much can crawl information on Facebook and Instagram that people have made “public”
As far as “social dynamics”, do you remember Cambridge Analytics? Why would I want my social graph to be publicly available.
It’s bad enough that people have their contacts synced with Facebook.
> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get very wrong and dangerous answers from AI frequently. I just searched "what's the ld50 of caffeine" and it says: > 367.7 mg/kg bw This is the ld50 of rats from this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27461039/ This is higher than the ld50 estimated for humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeinism > The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milli…
Perhaps a more common question: "How many calories do men need to lose weight?" Google AI responded: "To lose weight, men typically need to reduce their daily calorie intake by 1,500 - 1,800 calories" Which is obviously dangerous advice. IMO Google AI overviews should not show up for anything (a) medical or (b) numerical. LLMs just aren't safe enough yet.
Obese people can lose a bit more under doctor supervision. My understanding is that it’s tied partially to % of body weight lost per week and partly to what your organs can process, which does not increase with body mass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you use Kagi?
I'd never heard of it until I just Googled it... Is it a better experience compared to DuckDuckGo with bang operators?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the Dark Google metaphor, but SEO agencies being Google's real customers makes no sense to me.
Not OP, but here's how I read it: the SEO operators are driving traffic to google's ad network, where google make's its money. They aren't necessarily paying google much: the ad buyers are doing that, but they deliver the eyeballs to google's ads. Its kind of like the US hospital system, where doctors are considered by the hospital, if not de jure then certainly de facto, to be the real customers of the hospital. Doc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which is obviously dangerous advice. Same advice as my trainer gives me.
Your trainer advises you to reduce your calorie intake to between 200 and 500 calories per day? [0] That sounds very, very hazardous for anything other than very short term use, and (given the body's inbuilt "starvation mode") probably counterproductive, even then. [0] Note that the robot suggested to reduce calorie intake by 1,500->1,800 calories, and the recommended calorie intake is 2,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For whatever it’s worth, in response to the same question posed by me (“what is the ld50 of caffeine”), Google’s AI properly reported it as 150-200 mg/kg. I asked this about 1 minute after you posted your comment. Perhaps it learned of and corrected its mistake in that short span of time, perhaps it reports differently on every occasion, or perhaps it thought you were a rat :)
The median lethal dose (LD50) of caffeine in humans is estimated to be 150–200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass. However, the lethal dose can vary depending on a person's sensitivity to caffeine, and can be as low as 57 milligrams per kilogram. Route of administration Oral 367.7 mg/kg bw Dermal >2000 mg/kg bw Inhalation LC50 combined: ca. 4.94 mg/L ref: https://i.imghippo.com/files/yeKK3113pE.png 13:25EST (by a K…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but here's how I read it: the SEO operators are driving traffic to google's ad network, where google make's its money. They aren't necessarily paying google much: the ad buyers are doing that, but they deliver the eyeballs to google's ads. Its kind of like the US hospital system, where doctors are considered by the hospital, if not de jure then certainly de facto, to be the real customers of the hospital. Doc…
But Google would do just as well (probably better) without the SEOs, no? The SEOs are just manipulating the order of search results to their own interests, but I don't see how this would benefit Google's bottom line.