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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#691

Post by _bin_ »

antonvs wrote: post #484
_bin_ wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope we see more evolution of options before it does. Hard to articulate this without it becoming political, but I've seen countless examples both personally and from others of ChatGPT refusing to give answers not in keeping with what I'd term "shitlib ethics". People seem unwilling to accept that a system that talks like a person may surface things they don't like. Unless and until an LLM will return results from…

> Basically I want a model that is aligned to do exactly what I say This is a bit like asking for news that’s not biased. A model has to make choices (or however one might want to describe that without anthropomorphizing the big pile of statistics) to produce a response. For many of these, there’s no such thing as a “correct” choice. You can do a completely random choice, but the results from that tend not to be grea…

Not really. There are specific criteria and preferences applied to models about what companies do and don't want them to say. They are intentionally censored. I would like all production models to NOT have this applied. Moreover, I'd like them specifically altered to avoid denying user requests, something like the abliterated llama models.

There won't be a perfectly unbiased model, but the least we can demand is that corpos stop applying their personal bias intentionally and overtly. Models must make judgements about better and worse information, but not about good and bad. They should not decide certain things are impermissible according to the e-nannies.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#692

Post by llm_trw »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #308
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…

Classic innovator’s dilemma. The politics of Google make launching a search competitor impossible.

One thing I will always admire Apple for is being willing to essentially kill the iPod with the iPhone in 2007. No other company I've seen has been willing to kill their cash cow so thoroughly and so profitably.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#693

Post by _bin_ »

zbentley wrote: post #623
_bin_ wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope we see more evolution of options before it does. Hard to articulate this without it becoming political, but I've seen countless examples both personally and from others of ChatGPT refusing to give answers not in keeping with what I'd term "shitlib ethics". People seem unwilling to accept that a system that talks like a person may surface things they don't like. Unless and until an LLM will return results from…

I buy that there's bias here, but I'm not sure how much of it is activist bias. To take your example, if a typical user searches for "is ___ a Nazi", seeing Stormfront links above the fold in the results/summary is going to likely bother them more than seeing Mother Jones links. If bothered by perceived promotion of Stormfront, they'll judge the search product and engage less or take their clicks elsewhere, so it beh…

I can accept some level of this, but if a user specifically requests it, a model should generally act as expected. I think certain things are fine to require a specific ask before surfacing or doing, but the model shouldn't tell you "I can't assist with that" because it was intentionally trained to refuse a biased subset of possible instructions.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#694

Post by dataflow »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #675
dataflow wrote: post #659

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) 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 mig…

At the risk of derailing the conversation down a completely different rabbit hole... As I understand it, only citizens are legally entitled to vote, and voting requires a government-issued ID and the voter to be enrolled. How did they vote and get away with it previously? (also, as per another comment, if you know that this happened then surely they didn't get away with it?)

> (also, as per another comment, if you know that this happened then surely they didn't get away with it?)

Is it possible to steal money from a bank and get away with it? Is it possible to obtain citizenship fraudulently and get away with it? etc.

But if they got away with it then how do you know?

> How did they vote and get away with it previously?

Look it up on Wikipedia? They literally have linked cases from the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud_in_the_United_...

Or look at the most recent case in the news yesterday, which someone already replied with in the other comment: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/elections/20...

> At the risk of derailing the conversation down a completely different rabbit hole...

This will definitely derail the conversation so I'll just leave my reply at this.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#696

Post by extr »

layer8 wrote: post #219
Willamin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find myself being unable to search for more complex subjects when I don't know the keywords, specialized terminology, or even the title of a work, yet I have a broad understanding of what I'd like to find. Traditional search engines (I'll jump between Kagi, DuckDuckGo, and Google) haven't proved as useful at pointing me in the right direction when I find that I need to spend a few sentences describing what I'm look…

> I find myself being unable to search for more complex subjects when I don't know the keywords, specialized terminology, or even the title of a work, yet I have a broad understanding of what I'd like to find. For me this is typically a multi-step process. The results of a first search give me more ideas of terms to search for, and after some iteration I usually find the right terms. It’s a bit of an art to search fo…

Yeah this is exactly how I use LLMs + Google as well. I would even go further and say that most of the value of Google to me is the ability to find a specific type of source by searching for exact terminology. I think AI search is fatally flawed for this reason. For some things generic factual information is okay ("What's the capital of France?") but for everything else, the information is inextricably bound up with it's context. A spammy SEO blog and a specialist forum might have identical claims, but when received from the latter source it's more valuable, it's just higher signal.

Google used to care about this but no longer does, pagerank sucks and is ruined by SEO, but it still "works" because if you're good you can guess the kind of source you're looking for and what keywords might surface it. LLMs help with that part but you still need to read it yourself, because they don't have theory of mind yet to make good value judgements on source quality and communicate about it.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#697

Post by melagonster »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #675
dataflow wrote: post #659

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) 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 mig…

At the risk of derailing the conversation down a completely different rabbit hole... As I understand it, only citizens are legally entitled to vote, and voting requires a government-issued ID and the voter to be enrolled. How did they vote and get away with it previously? (also, as per another comment, if you know that this happened then surely they didn't get away with it?)

The check between licenses information and database happened after the election.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#699

Post by Giorgi »

All these search engines do is trying to parse content and push it on their pages, without contributing author. So, what incentive is there for content creators to keep writing these? At some tipping point there will be no point and bubble will burst, where will all these LLMs and traditional search engines get their info then?

Re: ChatGPT Search

#700

Post by lottin »

crakenzak wrote: post #583
lottin wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Sure, then just do that. No one will hold you at gunpoint and force you to use any kind of tool.

The criticism isn't that they are forcing me to use this tool.
Post reply on HN