• Victoria@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    161
    ·
    4 days ago

    Meanwhile Google search results:

    • AI summary
    • 2x “sponsored” result
    • AI copy of Stackoverflow
    • AI copy of Geeks4Geeks
    • Geeks4Geeks (with AI article)
    • the thing you actually searched for
    • AI copy of AI copy of stackoverflow
    • rescue_toaster@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      ·
      4 days ago

      Should we put bets on how long until chatgpt responds to anything with:

      Great question, before i give you a response, let me show you this great video for a new product you’ll definitely want to check out!

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Google search is literally fucking dogshit and the worst it has EVER been. I’m starting to think fucking duckduckgo (relies on Bing) gives better results at this point.

      • Aielman15@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        4 days ago

        I have been using Duck for a few years now and I honestly prefer it to Google at this point. I’ll sometimes switch to Google if I don’t find anything on Duck, but that happens once every three or four months, if that.

        • teft@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 days ago

          Same here. I only switch to google to search for images for memes. For some reason bing has a harder time finding random star trek scenes.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Careful. People here get mad about that for some reason. Like you can’t think Google sucks but that their search engine is still better than others. And people will argue with you that Google is way worse than anything else. I don’t know what planet they are from.

        • DiabolicalBird@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          The one thing Google still has over Duck for me at this point is reddit results. So much niche information is stored on that site, but they’ve blocked anyone other than Google from crawling the site so other engines can’t index past the point they changed that policy.

      • GingaNinga@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’m in sciences and the AI overview gives wrong answers ALL THE TIME. If students or god forbid professionals rely on it thats bad news.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Isn’t it funny that a lot of people were worried that wikipedia would be unreliable because anyone could edit it, then turned out pretty reliable, but AI is being pushed hard despite being even more unreliable than the worst speculation about wikipedia?

          Being for profit excuses being shitty I guess.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      We have new feature, use it!

      No, its broken and stupid, I prefer old feature.

      … Fine!

      breaks old feature even harder

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’ve used Google since 2004. I stopped using it this year because as the parent comment points out, it’s all marketing and AI. I like Qwant but it’s not perfect but it functions like a previous version of Google.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I have tried a few replacements for Google but I’ve yet to find anything remotely as effective for searches about things close to me. Like if I’m looking for a restaurant near me, kagi, startpage, and DDG are not good. Is qwant good for a use case like that? Haven’t heard about it before.

        • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I’ve had some success but it goes off of your ISPs server location so for me it’s not very useful.

      • DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I have not enjoyed Qwant - tried it as my default but I’m back to DDG. I just want a functional Google again (boolean operators please…)

    • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      yeah, but at least we can vet that shit better that the unsourced and hallucinated drivel provided by ChatGPT

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      The irony is that Gemini Pro is actually better than ChatGPT (which is not saying a ton, as OpenAI have completely stagnated and even some small open models are better now), but whatever they use for search is beyond horrible.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    ChatGPT is a tool under development and it will definitely improve in the long term. There is no reason to shit on it like that.

    Instead, focus on the real problems: AI not being open-source, AI being under the control of a few monopolies, and there being little to none regulations that ensure it develops in a healthy direction.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      it will definitely improve in the long term.

      Citation needed

      There is no reason to shit on it like that.

      Right now there is, because of how wrong it and other AIs can be, with the average person using the first answer as correct without double checking

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’ve had people tell me “Of course, I’ll verify the info if it’s important”, which implies that if the question isn’t important, they’ll just accept whatever ChatGPT gives them. They don’t care whether the answer is correct or not; they just want an answer.

      • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        That is a valid tactic for programming or how-to questions, provided you know not to unthinkingly drink bleach if it says to.

      • Leg@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Well yeah. I’m not gonna verify how many butts it takes to swarm mount everest, because that’s not worth my time. The robot’s answer is close enough to satisfy my curiosity.

        • Leg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          For the curious, I got two responses with different calculations and different answers as a result. So it could take anywhere from 1.5 to 7.5 billion butts to swarm mount everest. Again, I’m not checking the math because I got the answer I wanted.

  • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    GPTs natural language processing is extremely helpful for simple questions that have historically been difficult to Google because they aren’t a concise concept.

    The type of thing that is easy to ask but hard to create a search query for like tip of my tongue questions.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      4 days ago

      Google used to be amazing at this. You could literally search “who dat guy dat paint dem melty clocks” and get the right answer immediately.

      • burgersc12@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I mean tbf you can still search “who DAT guy” and it will give you Salvador Dali in one of those boxes that show up before the search results.

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 days ago

    Last night, we tried to use chatGPT to identify a book that my wife remembers from her childhood.

    It didn’t find the book, but instead gave us a title for a theoretical book that could be written that would match her description.

    • leverage@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Same happens every time I’ve tried to use it for search. Will be radioactive for this type of thing until someone figures that out. Quite frustrating, if they spent as much time on determining the difference between when a user wants objective information with citations as they do determining if the response breaks content guidelines, we might actually have something useful. Instead, we get AI slop.

  • Sculptus Poe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    I wonder where people can go. Wikipedia maybe. ChatGPT is better than google for answering most questions where getting the answer wrong won’t have catastrophic consequences. It is also a good place to get started in researching something. Unfortunately, most people don’t know how to assess the potential problems. Those people will also have trouble if they try googling the answer, as they will choose some biased information source if it’s a controversial topic, usually picking a source that matches their leaning. There aren’t too many great sources of information on the internet anymore, it’s all tainted by partisans or locked behind pay-walls. Even if you could get a free source for studies, many are weighted to favor whatever result the researcher wanted. It’s a pretty bleak world out there for good information.

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    Have they? Don’t think I’ve heard that once and I work with people who use chat gpt themselves

      • ddplf@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Which is still better than “elementary truths that will quickly turn into shit I make up without warning”, which is where ChatGPT is and will forever be stuck at.

      • Acters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Top is proprietary llms vs bottom self hosted llms. Bothe end with you getting smacked in the face but one looks far cooler or smarter to do, while the other one is streamlined web app that gets you there in one step.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          But when it is open source, nobody gets regularly slain and the planet progressively destroyed due to mega conglomerate entities automating class violence

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 days ago

    How long until ChatGPT starts responding “It’s been generally agreed that the answer to your question is to just ask ChatGPT”?

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’m somewhat surprised that ChatGPT has never replied with “just Google it, bruh!” considering how often that answer appears in its data set.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Google intentionally made search worse, but even if they want to make it better again, there’s very little they can do. The web itself is extremely low signal:noise, and it’s almost impossible to write an algorithm that lets the signal shine through (while also giving any search results back)