| ▲ | Waterluvian an hour ago | |
> is a problem when it is offered without context, sourcing, etc. Sure. But that's not what's happening here, yeah? Both examples are providing sources. Actually I'd say that the LLM is doing a better job at that. You click a button and see 9 URLs to 9 news sites. I think for the "influence LLM results" fears, it would be ridiculous to argue about which multi-billion dollar American company can be trusted more not to manipulate you. | ||
| ▲ | BeetleB 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | |
> Actually I'd say that the LLM is doing a better job at that. You click a button and see 9 URLs to 9 news sites. Does it show relevant snippets for each of the 9 URLs? If not, then it's as bad as Google's AI summary. It's not that rare that the reference disagrees with the LLM. The value of the non-LLM search engine is that in the search results, you see the relevant snippet, and if you want more information, you know quickly which links to click. Not saying there's no place for the LLM for many search engine use cases, but a proper search engine replacement it is not. | ||