Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Search

openai.com

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#651

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…

I agree that this is the core question, but I'd put it as: Who Gets To Decide What Is True?

With a search paradigm this wasn't an issue as much, because the answers were presented as "here's a bunch of websites that appear to deal with the question you asked". It was then up to the reader to decide which of those sites they wanted to visit, and therefore which viewpoints they got to see.

With an LLM answering the question, this is critical.

To paraphrase a recent conversation I had with a friend: "in the USA, can illegal immigrants vote?" has a single truthful answer ("no" obviously). But there are many places around the web saying other things (which is why my friend was confused). An LLM trawling the web could very conceivably come up with a non-truthful answer.

This is possibly a bad example, because the truth is very clearly written down by the government, based on exact laws. It just happened to be a recent example that I encountered of how the internet leads people astray.

A better example might be "is dietary saturated fat a major factor for heart disease in Western countries?". The current government publications (which answer "yes") for this are probably wrong based on recent research. The government cannot be relied upon as a source of truth for this.

And, generally, allowing the government to decide what is true is probably a path we (as a civilisation) do not want to take. We're seeing how that pans out in Australia and it's not good.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely think Kagi has led the way on this one. Simplicity is beautiful and effective, and Kagi has (IMHO) absolutely nailed it with their AI approach. It's one of those things that in hindsight seems obvious, which is a pretty good measure of how good an idea is IMHO. Google could have done it and kind of tried, although they're AI sucks too much. I'm very surprised that OpenAI hasn't done this sooner as well. T…

> I'm also cautiously optimistic though. We'll get there, but it's gonna be a bit shakey for a minute or two. But I don't understand how all of these AI results (note I haven't used Kagi so I don't know if it's different) don't fundamentally and irretrievably break the economics of the web. The "old deal" if you will is that many publishers would put stuff out on the web for free, but then with the hope that they cou…

> Why would anyone ever publish stuff on the web for free...?

Why indeed, person who posted for free* on the Internet?

As a side note, consider that adds can be woven into and boosted in LLM results just as easily as in index lookups.

* assuming that you're not shilling here by presenting the frame that the new shiny is magically immune to revenue pressures

Re: ChatGPT Search

#653

Phind kinda-sorta did this. For awhile I used it as my primary search, but limitations made me go back to Google. Hopefully ChatGPT's version works very well. Phind was more of a kludge to demonstrate what combining chat AI and search can do.

We're working on a complete redesign of Phind to make it more of a search competitor :) What were the limitations you ran into?

are you from phind? phind got worse over time. what happened? obviously you have changed something. but still, thanks for making it available for free. I hope it stays this way.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#654

Every time I see one of these topics, I go ask chat GPT a question to which I know the answer on a topic where I would like to be able to get useful answers to similar questions that I do not know the answer to. This time it was, "Did Paul Edwin Zimmer write a fourth Dark Border novel?" (Real answer: Yes, Ingulf the Mad . You can find the answer on his Wikipedia page.[1]) ChatGPT's[2] answer: "Yes, Paul Edwin Zimmer…

hallucination is user error

Re: ChatGPT Search

#656
I'm working on a search engine at https://sirch.ai if anyone wants to join something fun - or if anyone is interested in trying a demo. My email is josh @ sirch.org

The search engine uses AI to connect people - and it actually works at this point, kinda.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#657

Every time I see one of these topics, I go ask chat GPT a question to which I know the answer on a topic where I would like to be able to get useful answers to similar questions that I do not know the answer to. This time it was, "Did Paul Edwin Zimmer write a fourth Dark Border novel?" (Real answer: Yes, Ingulf the Mad . You can find the answer on his Wikipedia page.[1]) ChatGPT's[2] answer: "Yes, Paul Edwin Zimmer…

love these HN comments where someone ignores the topic entirely. with search enabled it gives the correct answer and sources Wikipedia correctly, not that you tried it

Re: ChatGPT Search

#658
post #247

So basically what phind.com has been doing all the time?

ikr. see this is the status quo of the HN audience. that and the ever increasing suspicious feeling that half of all comments are coming from bots.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#659

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…

I agree that this is the core question, but I'd put it as: Who Gets To Decide What Is True? With a search paradigm this wasn't an issue as much, because the answers were presented as "here's a bunch of websites that appear to deal with the question you asked". It was then up to the reader to decide which of those sites they wanted to visit, and therefore which viewpoints they got to see. With an LLM answering the que…

> To paraphrase a recent conversation I had with a friend: "in the USA, can illegal immigrants vote?" has a single truthful answer ("no" obviously)

Er, no, the meaning of the question is ambiguous, so I'm not sure "has a single truthful answer" is accurate. What does "can" mean? If you mean "permitted", then no. But if you mean can they vote anyway and get away with it? It's clearly happened before (as rare as it might have been), so technically the answer to that would be be yes.

Post reply on HN