I never do because I still don't trust its answers enough without also seeing a secondary source to confirm it and the first result or two is already correct 99% of the time and often also has source citations to tell me how that conclusion or information was made or gathered if im dealing with a potential edge case.

> so you never read the summary at the top of Google search results to get the answer

No.

Because I cannot trust it. (Especially when it gives no attributions).

I generally recognise utility of AI, but on this particular point, it has been a net negative if I were to add up the time I wasted by believing a summarised answer, got some length further on given task only to find that the answer was wrong and having to backtrack and redo all that work.

> so you never read the summary at the top of Google search results to get the answer because it provides the answer to most of my searches

Unfortunately yes I do, because it is placed in a way to immediately hijack my attention

Most of the time it is just regurgitating the text of the first link anyways, so I don't think it saves a substantial amount of time or effort. I would genuinely turn it off if they let me

> That's a feeling, not a fact

So? I'm allowed to navigate my life by how I feel

I've read some complete nonsense in those summaries. I use LLMs for other things but I don't find this application useful because I would need to trust it, and I don't.

This whole topic makes me remember the argument for vi, and quick typing. I was always baffled because for the 25 years since I can code, typing was never that huge block of my time that it would matter.

I have the same feeling with AI.

It clearly cannot produce the quality of code, architecture, features which I require from myself. And I also want to understand what’s written, and not saying “it works, it’s fine <inserting dog with coffee image here>”, and not copy-pasting a terrible StackOverflow answer which doesn’t need half of the code in reality, and clearly nobody who answered sat down and tried to understand it.

Of course, not everybody wants these, and I’ve seen several people who were fine with not understanding what they were doing. Even before AI. Now they are happy AI users. But it clears to me that it’s not beneficial salary, promotion, and political power wise.

So what’s left is that it types faster… but that was never an issue.

It can be better however. There was the first case just about a month ago when one of them could answer better to a problem than anything else which I knew or could find via Kagi/Google. But generally speaking it’s not there at all. Yet.

I have tried using them frequently. I've tried many things for years now, and while I am impressed I'm not impressed enough to replace any substantial part of my workflow with them

At this point I am somewhat of a conscientious objector though

Mostly from a stance of "these are not actually as good as people say and we will regret automating away jobs held by competent people in favor of these low quality automations"