undefined

points

[-]

Other way around. If I'm looking for the answer to a problem, I don't want the hallucination engine's half-remembered ramblings, I want the primary source that it's poorly attempting to reconstruct. But finding those primary sources has the potential to be easier, because LLMs effectively have built-in fuzzy search better than any classic search engine ever implemented.

In other words, I have no use for an LLM summarizer; I want an LLM librarian, working with me to say "beep-boop, here are some resources that seem relevant to your query, feel free to resume this session later if you'd like to further refine your search".

by wvenable9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> On the other hand, search engines should be more like "<thing>s released 1908" or "<topic> and give you results talking about what you searched.

Is that useful enough to build a billion dollar advertising business around? My feeling now is not really.

Even for straight up searches, I find using an LLM to do a search and comb through the results is a better experience than Google is now for searching. If I'm specifically looking for esoteric web sites from 27 years ago on vintage computer hardware and software (thank god for Archive.org), Google is just ok for that.

by estebank7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> LLMs are 100% better because they'll give me an answer without trying to sell me their thing or pump me with ads.

Yet.

by kibwen9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> they'll give me an answer without trying to sell me their thing or pump me with ads

Surely we all understand that any commercial model is going to inevitably metastasize into this.