Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

chuckwnelson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 504 posts

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#81

Post by Analemma_ »

scarface_74 wrote: post #64
Analemma_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but fairly or unfairly, asking a question to a chat bot feels like “opting in” to the possibility that the answers you get will be hallucinated garbage, in a way that doing a Google search does not. It’s a tough problem for Google to overcome— the fact that they will be held to a higher standard—- but that’s what it is: we have already learned to accept bullshit from LLMs as a fact of life, whereas on t…

I have been a paying ChatGPT user for awhile. It’s simply a matter of saying “verify that” and it will give you wen citations

It invents citations too, constantly. You could look up the things it cites, although at that point, what are you actually gaining?

And I’m not saying this makes them useless: I pay for Claude and am a reasonably happy customer, despite the occasional bullshit. But none of that is relevant to my point that the bots get held to a different standard than Google search and I don’t see an easy way for Google to deal with that.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#82

Post by vidarh »

warner25 wrote: post #43
binkHN wrote: post #7

> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…

But "search" and "getting an answer to a question" are two different things, aren't they? I realize that the trend has been going this way for a long time - probably since Ask Jeeves started blurring the line - and this is indeed how a lot of people try / want to use search engines, but still... I wish that Google (and competitors) would have separate pages for something like "Ask Google" vs. traditional search (wher…

Getting an answer to a question is a superset - the answer can be a page.

Sometimes the answer we want is a specific page containing some term, but for most people, most of the time, I'd argue that getting a narrower piece of information is more likely to be valuable and helpful.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#83

Post by ceejayoz »

scarface_74 wrote: post #64
Analemma_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but fairly or unfairly, asking a question to a chat bot feels like “opting in” to the possibility that the answers you get will be hallucinated garbage, in a way that doing a Google search does not. It’s a tough problem for Google to overcome— the fact that they will be held to a higher standard—- but that’s what it is: we have already learned to accept bullshit from LLMs as a fact of life, whereas on t…

I have been a paying ChatGPT user for awhile. It’s simply a matter of saying “verify that” and it will give you wen citations

Aren’t those citations sometimes entirely made up? Like the lawyers who used it for a case and it cited ones that never happened?

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#84

Post by Der_Einzige »

RF_Savage wrote: post #4

The Yahooification of Googles search becomes more amusing when one considers that it is now led buy the dude who ran Yahoo search to the ground.

Given how Vivek and Elon kicked the hornets nest about this, I wonder if there will be blow-back at Yahoo. A lot of people don't realize that Yahoo basically only survives today off the back of H1b labor.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#85

Post by chimpanzee »

echelon wrote: post #70
warner25 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But "search" and "getting an answer to a question" are two different things, aren't they? I realize that the trend has been going this way for a long time - probably since Ask Jeeves started blurring the line - and this is indeed how a lot of people try / want to use search engines, but still... I wish that Google (and competitors) would have separate pages for something like "Ask Google" vs. traditional search (wher…

I get very wrong and dangerous answers from AI frequently. I just searched "what's the ld50 of caffeine" and it says: > 367.7 mg/kg bw This is the ld50 of rats from this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27461039/ This is higher than the ld50 estimated for humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeinism > The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milli…

For whatever it’s worth, in response to the same question posed by me (“what is the ld50 of caffeine”), Google’s AI properly reported it as 150-200 mg/kg.

I asked this about 1 minute after you posted your comment. Perhaps it learned of and corrected its mistake in that short span of time, perhaps it reports differently on every occasion, or perhaps it thought you were a rat :)

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#86

Post by [deleted] »

asdff wrote: post #28
binkHN wrote: post #7

> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…

Were you not googling before? They had a bullet point summary that was actually more accurate because it scraped direct quotes from the website. Now I am getting wrong info from the ai summary. Its a huge step back from just what was there previously but its sold as some advancement.

[deleted]

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#87

Post by JustExAWS »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
scarface_74 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a paying ChatGPT user for awhile. It’s simply a matter of saying “verify that” and it will give you wen citations

Aren’t those citations sometimes entirely made up? Like the lawyers who used it for a case and it cited ones that never happened?

No, ChatGPT has had a web search tool for paid users forever. It actually searches the web and you can click on the links

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#88

Post by pests »

chimpanzee wrote: post #85
echelon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get very wrong and dangerous answers from AI frequently. I just searched "what's the ld50 of caffeine" and it says: > 367.7 mg/kg bw This is the ld50 of rats from this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27461039/ This is higher than the ld50 estimated for humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeinism > The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milli…

For whatever it’s worth, in response to the same question posed by me (“what is the ld50 of caffeine”), Google’s AI properly reported it as 150-200 mg/kg. I asked this about 1 minute after you posted your comment. Perhaps it learned of and corrected its mistake in that short span of time, perhaps it reports differently on every occasion, or perhaps it thought you were a rat :)

I also got similar and just tried, we are posting within minutes.

--

The median lethal dose (LD50) of caffeine in humans is estimated to be 150–200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass. However, the lethal dose can vary depending on a person's sensitivity to caffeine, and can be as low as 57 milligrams per kilogram. Route of administration LD50 Oral 367.7 mg/kg bw Dermal 2000 mg/kg bw Inhalation LC50 combined: ca. 4.94 mg/L The FDA estimates that toxic effects, such as seizures, can occur after consuming around 1,200 milligrams of caffeine.

There was a table in the middle there.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#89

Post by JustExAWS »

Analemma_ wrote: post #81
scarface_74 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a paying ChatGPT user for awhile. It’s simply a matter of saying “verify that” and it will give you wen citations

It invents citations too, constantly. You could look up the things it cites, although at that point, what are you actually gaining? And I’m not saying this makes them useless: I pay for Claude and am a reasonably happy customer, despite the occasional bullshit. But none of that is relevant to my point that the bots get held to a different standard than Google search and I don’t see an easy way for Google to deal with…

Do you pay for ChatGPT? The paid version of ChatGPT has had a web search tool for ages. It will search the web and give you live links.

Re: Google's Results Are Infested, Open AI Is Using Their Playbook from the 2000s

#90

Post by dageshi »

scarface_74 wrote: post #59
nicbou wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answers come from the same websites. They just get stripped of their traffic. As someone who puts a ton of work into writing accurate, helpful guides, it's devastating to have my work plundered like that. Once these monopolies have successfully established themselves, they will become indistinguishable from the ad-invested websites they replace. The only difference is that they will create no new information of t…

How are you monetizing your website? Is it with ads?

Presumably, because no other method than ads or affiliate links works...
Post reply on HN