|
|
|
|
|
|
by slibhb
1213 days ago
|
|
|
> Ben’s got it just right. These things are terrible at the knowledge search problems they’re currently being hyped for. But they’re amazing as a combination of conversational partner and text adventure. I don't think that's exactly right. They really are good for searching for certain kinds of information, you just have to adapt to treating your search box as an immensely well-educated conversational partner (who sometimes hallucinates) rather than google search. |
|
|
It's important to remember that Google search also returns false results for all kinds of searches and that's it's been getting slowly worse for years.
Recently I searched Google for "bamboo sign" because I was designing a 3d model building and I wanted a placeholder texture for the sign.
What I got was loads of results for "bamboo spine" which apparently is a skeletal disorder of some kind. Putting "sign" in quotes or the entire "bamboo sign" in quotes didn't make any difference, Google had decided I was looking for information about spines and that was it.
I switched over to duckduckgo and got the results I wanted immediately (Duckduckgo, of course, is bad at loads of other things that Google would do better at).
Before people dismiss chat based search for sometimes being incorrect, I think we need a comprehensive test: ask both Google search and the new Bing Chat search a few hundred simple questions on a broad range of topics and see which gives more incorrect answers.