I have kind of just been using ChatGPT 4o as my search engine, it’s been working pretty well.
I wonder what the energy/environmental impact is vs a traditional search.
Completely terrible. An AI “search” takes as much electricity as hundreds to thousands of normal searches.
'AI" is TERRIBLE for climate change because they’re increasing demand for electricity so much that they’re keeping coal plants going that were even scheduled for decomissioning because they use A LOT of power.
I’ve been trying to find a search engine that doesn’t use AI for this very reason, but with little luck. Any suggestions?
Doesn’t DuckDuckGo not have AI?
This can be resolved by building the data centers to cold countries like here in Finland. Servers are very good at converting electricity to heat, and the heat can be used to heat homes.
Microsoft Azure data center in Espoo is going to heat up 60% of the city’s district heating network.
Also the electricity here in Finland is one of the cleanest, like in all Nordics (hydro, wind, nuclear)
The electricity would be better spent on heat pumps. Computers convert 100% of their electricity into heat. Heat pumps convert 200-400% of their electricity into heat.
(I’m being lose with my wording for brevity’s sake)
deleted by creator
I used perplexity pretty exclusively for a while. Especially for work. Both have their place and use cases but when I’m looking for something truly specific or nuanced, it’s DDG and a manual search.
Same (in some situations). I feel like searching for “how to do X?”, where X is a simple problem or knowledge, more often than not the classic search results are linking to articles that are way too long and talk around the solution way too much before actually getting to it (if at all).
Sure, I don’t trust the AI responses for critical stuff, but I honestly rarely trust a random blog article either.
Oh cool! A search engine that’ll give you fake URL’s!
If someone missed that: it returned a wrong answer even in the demo video.
Only a matter of time until someone genuinely puts glue on their pizza
deleted by creator
No. ChatGPT pulls information out of its ass and how I read it SearchGPT actually links to sources (while also summarizing it and pulling information out of it’s ass, presumably). ChatGPT “knows” things and SearchGPT should actually look stuff up and present it to you.
deleted by creator
It’s not doing live queries at all, it just makes a statistically likely answer up from its training data
deleted by creator
This is like saying the library search engine and Bob the drunkard who looked at the shelf labels and swears up and down he knows where everything is are the same thing.
Look, ChatGPT is an averaging machine. Yes it has ingested a significant chunk of the text on the internet, but it does not reproduce text exactly as it found it, it produces an average of all the text it has seen, weighted towards what seems like it make sense for the situation. For really common information this is fine. For niche information, it is bullshitting without any indication.
deleted by creator
ChatGPT is not a search engine, it generates predictions on what is the most likely text completion to your prompt. It does not pull information from a database. It is a mathematical model. Its weights do not contain the training data. It is not indexing anything. You will not find any page from the internet in the model. It is all averaged out and any niche detail is lost, overpowered by more prevalent but less relevant training data. This is why it bullshits. When it bullshits it is not because it searched for something and came up empty, it is because in the training data there simply was not a sufficient number of occurrences of the answer to influence its response against the weight of all the other more prevalent training data. ChatGPT does not search anything.
I mean yeah it does include data scraped from the web but that is all three years old at this point. Hardly a search engine by any metric
deleted by creator
It literally doesn’t do that
From the train dataset that was frozen many years ago. It’s like you know something instead of looking it up. It doesn’t provide sources, it just makes shit up based on what was in the (old) dataset. That’s totally different than looking up the information based on what you know and then using the new information to create an informed answer backed up by sources
Kagi supports this since a while. You can end your query with a question mark to request a “quick answer” generated using an llm, complete with sources and citations. It’s surprisingly accurate and useful!
No, its fancy autocomplete at a huge scale. Sometimes it returns correct answers.
A search engine should be taking a list of websites and metadata about those websites and returning results based on some ranking with the original desire being to get you what you wanted. (The current desire is just how much money can be extracted from your hands on the keys)
GPT: Because nobody in their right mind would waste nukes destroying the Internet.
@schizoidman I can’t wait to use the energy requirements of a small country to search for shoes and convert from kg to lbs!
I hope it’s using a shit load of energy, like other “AI” stuff. Because we’re absolutely not in a climate crisis where reducing consumption is necessary. More “AI” that consumes more power, that’s exactly what we need.
Cool, so the worst part of modern search engines has been made into its own standalone search engine. Very neat.
I don’t get the hype around LLM, it is a terrible way to search. It has never give me anything useful on any of my search, ever.
Most of the time asking chatgpt anything non-trivial, it will just spit out gibberish that doesn’t mean anything.
Who in their right mind would look at these terribly stupid thing and think: Yeah! This garbage is going to advance humanity.
Have you tried perplexity.ai? Using it to do some programming and it’s quite good so far. It’s basically LLM + Search Engines.
You can also use it to use different models (not just with ChatGPT).
Sometimes even run the code itself (Python for my case) and see if it’s valid.
I don’t get the hype around LLM, it is a terrible way to search
I’ll be playing devil’s advocate here just for a moment (despite the huge ecological, moral, political and economical costs) :
- what LLM does provide is a looser linguistic interface. That means instead of searching for exact words, one can approximately search for the “idea”. That means instead of hitting just the right keywords that an expert might know, one can describe a partial solution, a very rough guess of what the problem might be, and possibly get a realistic sounding answer. It might be wrong yet it might still be a step in the right direction.
So… yes I also don’t think the hype is justified but IMHO it’s quite clear that providing a solution that makes an interface easier to get some OK-looking result would appeal to masses. That means a LOT of people get their hopes up about potential empowerment and a few people ride that bubble making money on promises.
PS: for people interested in the topic but wanting to avoid the generative aspect I believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_search is a good starting point.
That would be great if they just got the LLM AI out of real search engines.
So their solution to a problem that their existing problem created is to use that problem to solve itself.
