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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#801

Post by sethammons »

topaz0 wrote: post #438
zo1 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, even with all the trillions in additional productivity it has added to the world, has left the world at a net-negative. We can't even quantify it, and every person will tell you a different way in which it has impacted the world negatively. E.g. for me, how much Google (and silicon valley in general) have enabled twisted ideologies to flourish. All in search of ad-dollars by virtue of eyeballs on screens, at…

Now we get to see how OpenAI will do similar harm, more effectively and at much greater environmental cost.

I feel like we have an opportunity to break a feedback loop. SEO worked because of links. No links in my chatgpt discussions. Ah, but what about all the junk ai gen content you may counter, but that stuff only works because of SEO links. As more people abandon searching for links for discussions, the SEO usefulness diminishes. Maybe to the point where many parasites stop making SEO shite in the first place.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#802

Post by maeil »

juunpp wrote: post #393
101008 wrote: post #156

Search in the internet worked because people wanted to generate content to attract people to display ads or any other reason, but they wanted to attract people. If now my content is going to be ingested and shown by a LLM or AI agent, what's the purpose to give it for free? I know it won't happen, but I would love if this type of agents have to pay to show a summarization of another website. It's only fair when done…

Seems like a good thing to me. - The clickbait, SEO-optimized garbage that today fills 95% of search results could entirely disappear as a business model because they have nothing interesting to offer and the LLM company won't pay for low quality content. - The average Joe blogging on their website won't go anywhere because they aren't profiting from it to begin with. And the LLM linking back to the page with a refer…

> A paradigm shift, but not one that benefits the end user.

That's too neutral; the result is worse for the end user. It will be impossible to distinguish injected ads, unlike with Google. Furthermore, as it gives a much more direct "answer", people will also trust it more than a website linked to on Google.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#803

Post by sethammons »

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 .

You prefer the spam laden inboxes of yore? I sure a shit don't. Gmail's spam filtering saves so much crap from my inbox

Re: ChatGPT Search

#804

Post by maeil »

tomjen3 wrote: post #446
Xcelerate wrote: post #12

How long until advertisements are subtly introduced? I didn’t notice any specific brand of limoncello recommended in their demo.

It is much more expensive to run a search query with AI. I don't think ads can pay for it.

How many human search queries does Google serve and how much do they make on SERP ads?

I can see OpenAI's revenue per search ending up higher too since the ads will be impossible to distinguish, so even more valuable for advertisers.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#805

Post by yazantapuz »

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 computer in Star Trek was not owned by a for-profit company. Ir has different incentives. Also, i think its knowledge base Is curated (a kind of starfleet library, with no random entries for a intergalactic internet).

Re: ChatGPT Search

#806

Post by maeil »

sidcool wrote: post #3

It will be fun to see how they stand up to Google and Perplexity. I feel they are a bit late in the search game, but excited to see what they cook

> I feel they are a bit late in the search game

It doesn't matter. Google was late to the browser game, yet now the whole world runs Chrome. Analogy applies 1:1 to OpenAI.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#807

Post by jstummbillig »

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…

> 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

I don't think this appropriately credits Google's power with regards to what you are seeing

Re: ChatGPT Search

#808

Post by senko »

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…

This nails it:

> Who Gets To Decide What Is True?

I would not agree to this however:

> It was then up to the reader to decide which of those sites they wanted to visit,

With current search engines, Google decides for you ("helped" by SEO experts failing over themselves to rank higher because their revenue directly depends on it). In theory, you could go an read a few dozen pages and decide for yourself.

In reality, non-technical users will click on a first link that seems to be related to the question, and that's it.

Even with AI-based search (or q/a instead of search) I think the same will happen. There is and will be a huge reward for gaming the results, be they page links or RAG snippets that rank for a query. I've already seen many SEO shops advertising their strategies to keep the customers' business relevant in the chatbot area. As this approach becomes more prevalent, you can be sure many smart people will do many experiments to figure out how best to please the new algorithm.

In other words, AI-based search is an UX optimization, but doesn't address the core problem of how do you decide what content's the best, and do that in context of each user, and do that while maximizing the benefit for the user vs profit for the company doing this.

So we have two huge hurdles:

1. who will decide what the user wants[0] to see, and how are incentives for that entity aligned with the user's

2. how is that entity supposed to find the information needle in the haystack of slop that's 90%+ of current web?

[0] "wants" in a rational "give me the best possible information" meaning, not in "what keeps them addicted, their heart rate up, and what will drive engagement" meaning

Re: ChatGPT Search

#809

Post by senko »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #525
freedomben wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely think Kagi has led the way on this one. Simplicity is beautiful and effective, and Kagi has (IMHO) absolutely nailed it with their AI approach. It's one of those things that in hindsight seems obvious, which is a pretty good measure of how good an idea is IMHO. Google could have done it and kind of tried, although they're AI sucks too much. I'm very surprised that OpenAI hasn't done this sooner as well. T…

> 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?

So that ChatGPT mentiones you, not your competitor, in the answer to the user. I have seen multiple SEO agencies already advertise that.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#810

Post by hndamien »

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…

X is answering this but having you pay for the service as a primary revenue model.
Post reply on HN