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

ChatGPT Search

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#391

Post by nomel »

jameslk wrote: post #242

What’s the benefit for websites to allow OpenAI/Microsoft to scrape and republish all their content without sending traffic back to them? It seems like these type of “search engines” will just get blocked in the short term. Longer term, it seems what will be left is “AI Optimized” content, which turns LLM search engines into shills for advertisers. Or these new search engines will have to compensate content producers…

This is probably powered by Bing indexes. I doubt many would intentionally exclude themselves from Bing. I suspect Gemini is the same, using Google's index.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#392

Post by lottin »

hatthew wrote: post #238
cjf101 wrote: post #183

If the current iteration of search engines are producing garbage results (due to an influx of garbage + SEO gaming their ranking systems) and LLMs are producing inaccurate results without any clear method proposed to correct them, why would combining the two systems not also produce garbage? The problem I see with search is that the input is deeply hostile to what the consumers of search want. If the LLM's are partic…

Search engines tend to produce neutral garbage, not harmful garbage (i.e. small tidbits of data between an ocean of SEO fluff, rather than completely incorrect facts). LLMs tend to be inaccurate because in an absence of knowledge given by the user, it will sometimes make up knowledge. It's plausible to imagine that they will cover each other's weaknesses: the search engine produces an ocean of mostly-useless data, an…

Maybe it's just me but I have no interest in having a computer algorithm interpret data for me. That's a job that I want to do myself.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#393

Post by juunpp »

101008 wrote: post #156

Search in the internet worked because people wanted to generate content to attract people to display ads or any other reason, but they wanted to attract people. If now my content is going to be ingested and shown by a LLM or AI agent, what's the purpose to give it for free? I know it won't happen, but I would love if this type of agents have to pay to show a summarization of another website. It's only fair when done…

Seems like a good thing to me.

- The clickbait, SEO-optimized garbage that today fills 95% of search results could entirely disappear as a business model because they have nothing interesting to offer and the LLM company won't pay for low quality content.

- The average Joe blogging on their website won't go anywhere because they aren't profiting from it to begin with. And the LLM linking back to the page with a reference would be a nice touch. Same logic applies to things like Open Libra and projects that are fundamentally about open information and not about driving ad revenue.

But, on the other hand, I don't think LLM-based search will fundamentally change anything. Ad revenue will get in the way as always and the LLM-based search will start injecting advertisements in its results. How other companies manage to advertise on this new platform will be figured out. What LLM-based search does is give Microsoft and others the opportunity to take down Google as the canonical search engine. A paradigm shift, but not one that benefits the end user.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#394

Post by freetonik »

techwiz137 wrote: post #380
freediver wrote: post #241

Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm? The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. C…

The biggest question is, can this bring back the behaviour of search engines from long ago? It's significantly difficult to find old posts, blogs or forums with relevant information compared to 10-15 years ago.

I’m building a blog search engine with the hope to preserve at the “blogs” part.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#395

Post by sireat »

blixt wrote: post #108

One thing that is quite unfortunate with the state of SEO and the web in general today is that when I asked "what are the latest versions of common programming languages and when were they released?" a large amount of the sources were "13 Tools You Should Learn Now" and the like. This might be a solvable problem within the search API they provide to the LLM, but for now I wouldn't trust current LLMs to be able to fil…

This was a nice counterexample to other queries that seemed quite decent.

I got:

  Programming Language Latest Version Release Date
  Python 3.12.0 October 2, 2024 ???!!!!!
  Java SE 22 March 2024
  JavaScript ECMAScript 2024 June 2024
  C++ C++23 December 2023
  C# 12.0 September 2024
  Ruby 3.3.0 December 25, 2023
  PHP 8.3.0 November 2023
  Swift 6.0 September 2024
  Go 1.22 August 2024  !!!
  Rust 1.75 October 2024 !!!!
  Kotlin 2.0.0 May 21, 2024 !!!
This is pretty bad. (???!!! added by me)

However, my follow up query "Provide primary web page for each language listed above" was quite decent:

Here are the primary websites for the programming languages mentioned:

  Python: https://www.python.org/
  Java: https://www.oracle.com/java/
  JavaScript: https://developer.mozilla.org/en- 
 US/docs/Web/JavaScript
  C++: https://isocpp.org/
  C#: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/
  Ruby: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
  PHP: https://www.php.net/
  Swift: https://www.swift.org/
  Go: https://go.dev/
  Rust: https://www.rust-lang.org/
  Kotlin: https://kotlinlang.org/
The problem was with the 3rd query "Provide latest version for each language as mentioned on the primary website for that language."

That brought back the first result basically unchanged.

So certainly this is a work in progress but very promising.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#396

Post by mewpmewp2 »

meowkit wrote: post #351
jsheard wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concern I have with LLMs replacing search is that once it starts being monetized with ads or propaganda, it's going to be very dangerous. Not to mention that users consuming most content through a middle-man completely breaks most publishers business models. Traditional search is a mutually beneficial arrangement, but LLM search is parasitic. Expect to see a lot more technical countermeasures and/or lawsuits ag…

“Fuck you, pay me” - Childish Gambino The whole thing needs a reframe. Ad driven business only works because its a race to the bottom. Now we are approaching the bottom, and its not gonna be as competitive. Throwback to the 90s when you paid for a search engine? If you can charge the user (the customer- NOT the product) and then pay bespoke data providers (of which publishers fall under) then the model makes more sen…

I think something as important as accurate and quick search should be definitely something that people are willing to spend on. $20 / month for something like that seems absolutely a no brainer, and it should for everyone in my view.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#397

Post by swyx »

notice conspicuous lack of New York Times. the partner vs lawsuit stakes of traditional media vs openai are playing out now.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#398

Post by carls »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #382
whizzter wrote: post #300

This is probably Google's Altavista moment, by making their results crappier by the year in search of Ad dollars everyone has felt that there is a potential for search to be better and once that becomes available they'll be in a continious game of catch-up. Yes, Google has their own AI divisions, tons of money and SEO is to blame for part of their crappiness. But they've also _explicitly_ focused on ad-dollars over a…

> if one is to believe the reports of their internal politics I'm not familiar with what you're referring to here. Happen to have a link?

There are probably several, but one of the ones that made the rounds a while ago is "The Man Who Killed Google Search" by Edward Zitron: https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

Re: ChatGPT Search

#399

Post by swyx »

lottin wrote: post #392
hatthew wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search engines tend to produce neutral garbage, not harmful garbage (i.e. small tidbits of data between an ocean of SEO fluff, rather than completely incorrect facts). LLMs tend to be inaccurate because in an absence of knowledge given by the user, it will sometimes make up knowledge. It's plausible to imagine that they will cover each other's weaknesses: the search engine produces an ocean of mostly-useless data, an…

Maybe it's just me but I have no interest in having a computer algorithm interpret data for me. That's a job that I want to do myself .

then you are blissfully unaware of how much data is already being interpreted for you by computer algorithms, and how much you probably actually really like it.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#400

Post by dotancohen »

fmbb wrote: post #284
jtgverde wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great find on the knowledge navigator, I had never seen it but I was a toddler when it was released haha. It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away Is this time…

> It's interesting how prescient it was, but I'm more struck wondering--would anyone in 1987 have predicted it would take 40+ years to achieve this? Obviously this was speculative at the time but I know history is rife with examples of AI experts since the 60s proclaiming AGI was only a few years away 40+ makes it sound like you think it will ever be achieved. I'm not convinced.

Maybe after fusion.
Post reply on HN