I don't want my search engine to think for me • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't want my search engine to think for me

#71

Post by pooploop64 » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 2:25 AM UTC

jhhh wrote: post #41

Ironic to use AI writing to complain about AI search results to advertise your product. But to the point, being an old school firefox user I still have separate address and search bars. My main search engine on my PC is 'google (web only)' which opens directly to the web tab which only has result links. I'm dreading the day they remove it as a feature.

We have been getting a ton of LLM generated essays talking about how bad LLMs are. It happens so much that it feels like a new kind of engagement bait.

Re: I don't want my search engine to think for me

#72

Post by LocalH » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 7:39 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #70

LocalH wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain your reasoning beyond "oh they used em dashes"

There's a recognizable style to the overall piece. The subheadings for example "The summary is not the answer" and "The verification problem is real and it compounds" are typical being punchy but not really making much sense. Also consider >This is slower. That's real. It's more work. And it is, in practice, more accurate — because accuracy in information retrieval is a function of reading, not of being read to. The…

But is anything you said any more than heuristic?

Re: I don't want my search engine to think for me

#73

Post by roywiggins » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 8:37 PM UTC

LocalH wrote: post #68

roywiggins wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pangram agrees it's 100% LLM written.

But I'm sure you understand that AI-driven "AI detectors" have an error rate of probably 90%, right? I've heard of people taking old writings from 30 years ago, feeding it to an AI detector, and being told "this is AI"

Pangram seems to be tuned to avoid false positives most of the time.