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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#681

Post by gonzobonzo »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #651
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…

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). 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.

There are many jurisdictions where some illegal immigrants (Dreamers) are allowed to vote, including New York City[1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/new-york-all...

Re: ChatGPT Search

#682

Post by epigramx »

The general population is not equipped to handle hallucination. No they will not be equipped to handle it any time soon. The elderly and the small children will never learn in time.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#683

Post by coding123 »

epigramx wrote: post #682

The general population is not equipped to handle hallucination. No they will not be equipped to handle it any time soon. The elderly and the small children will never learn in time.

And that's just two categories. Even teens and 10x software engineers will make those mistakes in a pinch of time

Re: ChatGPT Search

#684

Post by wodenokoto »

greenavocado wrote: post #483
umvi wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point it seems like Google switch to ML-based search instead of index based search. You can search for very specific combinations of lyrics and scenes: "eyes on me pineapple bucket of water house of cards chess time loop" and you won't surface a link to the music video featuring all of those things ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlzgDVLtU6g ), you'll just get really generic results of the average of your q…

Has google completely stopped working for anyone else? I can still search things, i get results but, they're an ordered list of popular places the engine is directing me to. Some kind of filtering is occurring on nearly every search i make that's making the results feel entirely useless. Image search stopped working sometime ago and now it just runs an AI filter on whatever image you search for, tells you there's a m…

I think calling it "completely stopped working" is a bit over the top.

It doesn't feel magical, and it particularly doesn't feel like a gateway to new and interesting places on the internet, like it used to.

But I still make hundreds of searches on google every day, so obviously it is working.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#685

Post by ethbr1 »

gonzobonzo wrote: post #681
marcus_holmes wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). 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. There are many jurisdictions where some illegal immigrants (Dreamers) are allowed to vot…

>> "in the USA, can illegal immigrants vote?"

> More than 800,000 non-citizens and “Dreamers” could vote in New York City municipal elections

Treating the question literally, that would not be in the USA (federal elections).

Re: ChatGPT Search

#686

Post by [deleted] »

int_19h wrote: post #359
psychoslave wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean with "when it starts"? To my mind it's obvious all LLM are heavily biased to a point it's ridiculous, all the more with the confident tone they are trained to take. I have no doubt Chinese LLM will prise the party as much as American ones will sing the gospel of neoliberal capitalism.

Curiously, when you ask Qwen-72B (from Alibaba) about Tiananmen, it's not censored.

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Search

#687

Post by opdahl »

dmix wrote: post #601

This is a great way to find what movies or concerts are playing at a theater/venue. It even lists how much each costs. You can even search “what [music genre] is playing in [city] this November” and it lists them. All of those would normally take multiple clicks/manual filtering or ad filled aggregator sites.

Actually I tried this myself and it just failed horribly. Getting the wrong dates, citing old SEO blog spam and basically not finding anything that fit my criteria. When I asked for it to go more in depth it again failed to verify and misjudged the dates by one year.

You can take a look for yourself here: https://chatgpt.com/share/67245f76-bf88-8012-b72d-703beed088...

Re: ChatGPT Search

#688

Post by gonzobonzo »

kristopolous wrote: post #453
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…

There's this tech pattern of letting the cash-cow stagnate and deteriorate while focusing on high risk moonshots. This especially happens after they dominate the market. Take for example IE6, Intel, Facebook, IBM, and now Google. They have everything they need to keep things from going off the rails, management however has a tendency to delusionally assume their ship is so unsinkable that they're not even manning the…

> There's this tech pattern of letting the cash-cow stagnate and deteriorate while focusing on high risk moonshots.

It is interesting to go back a decade and read the articles about Google's moonshots from then. There was even more "we're building the future!" hype than what Elon Musk or Sam Altman are currently pushing.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#690

Post by gonzobonzo »

ethbr1 wrote: post #685
gonzobonzo wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There are many jurisdictions where some illegal immigrants (Dreamers) are allowed to vot…

>> "in the USA, can illegal immigrants vote?" > More than 800,000 non-citizens and “Dreamers” could vote in New York City municipal elections Treating the question literally, that would not be in the USA (federal elections).

> Treating the question literally, that would not be in the USA (federal elections).

I strongly disagree. Going by your interpretation, the question "How many people in the USA vote in local elections?" would have the answer "not a single person."

Post reply on HN