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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#711

Post by impulser_ »

esafak wrote: post #599
impulser_ wrote: post #478

Why would I use this over Google? This has the same problem as Preplexity. Google is instant, why would I wait for a bunch of text to generate just to get basic information.

Google instantly gives bad results, that's why.

People say this but I have not had the experience at all.

Google results arent perfect, but the experience of Google is way better than any of these LLM search apps.

I don't even know how anyone can disagree.

You have to enter your query, wait for GPT to search, then wait for it to generate it response character by character and then you have to hope it what you want or you have to start over .

Starting over on Google takes no time.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#712

Post by Aeglaecia »

karel-3d wrote: post #710

One time it cited something that looked like a ChatGPT-generated article as a source. That doesn't sound great. But in other ways this looks like a great upgrade

great for those who enjoy burning gallons of water to perform a simple search

Re: ChatGPT Search

#713

Post by LordRishav »

Stratoscope wrote: post #580
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> the history of the domestication of the tomato" that Google essentially forced on recipe sites for SEO competitive reasons That may help with SEO, but another reason is copyright law. Recipes can't be copyrighted, but stories can. Here is how ChatGPT explained it to me: > Recipes themselves, particularly the list of ingredients and steps, generally can't be copyrighted because they're considered functional instruct…

Would like to read more about this. Has anybody used this technique to actually successfully sue someone for infringing their copyright on an instructional website or is it only theoretically possible?

Re: ChatGPT Search

#714

Post by rushingcreek »

llm_trw wrote: post #701
rushingcreek wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I was a paying customer for around 6 months. Perplexity's UI was better for finding sources and their model prompts and settings were better at proving summaries from pages at the time I left. The one thing that kept me on Phind for a lot longer than I would have otherwise been was that I could pay for Claude usage when I over ran my daily quota. With Sonnet 3.5 there wasn't a point since I wasn't getting over the li…

Thanks for the detailed feedback, this is super helpful. We’re working on a complete redesign at the moment to fix the longstanding UX issues along with a suite of model updates. I’ll be in touch over email — I’d love to give you a preview and get your thoughts.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#715

Post by mulmen »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #605
mulmen wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can’t trust the result of a query how can you trust the check on that query which is itself a query? If no information is trustworthy how do you make progress?

As you check more and varied sources, you gain confidence in the result, even if you never get to 100%.

Ok but what if we devise a system which does exactly that? Sounds suspiciously like an LLM to me. I’m as skeptical as anyone about LLMs as AGI they do sound like an aggregate of sources so the only question is how trustworthy those sources are.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#716

Post by lugu »

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…

Google created a printing money machine. OpenAI is absolutely trying to create one too. They aren't trying to "fix the web". Search is a proxy to get into people's wallet. OpenAI might directly get into it buying agents. The problem of miss aligned incentives on the search space isn't a technological problem. A new technology might solve it as a side effect, but it is unlikely IMO.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#717

Post by Kiro »

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 .

99.99% of all data is complete garbage and impossible for a human to sift through. Most spam email doesn't even end up in your spam inbox. It gets stopped long before that.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#718

Post by Culonavirus »

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

I know this is a predominantly white, upper middle class site (read: progressive), and people from that demo sure love to point out that "you can't say the leg is broken just because the foot is dangling at 90 degrees, you aren't a doctor!" ..... but at some point you surely have to start to trust your own eyes and use critical thinking, right??

It's not a conspiracy theory Google ruined their search to serve more ads. It's so obvious and happening for such a long period of time, anyone above certain age and with decent memory can see it. You don't have to "believe the reports", you don't even have to be smart, just use your eyes and your memory.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#719

Post by 6510 »

generalizations wrote: post #547
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 unless it was just a hobby That's exactly what the old deal was, and it's what made the old web so good. If every paid or ad-funded site died tomorrow, the web would be pretty much healed.

To quote Prince: ahh, now people can finally go back to making music for the sake of making music.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#720

Post by DeathArrow »

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 future is that of manually curated content by human beings. And pay walls. Most of the other stuff will be junk.
Post reply on HN