[rz2k]

I wonder if cross-examined on that claim, that he would clarify that they have hundreds of thousands of Pro customers. Something like: It’s easy to get lost in the weeds of how much Individual subscribers paid, but that is an accurate characterization of the number of Pro Perplexity subscribers.

The point is, I have a Pro Perplexity subscription for a year, because my ISP was offering year long access for free. I think it is pretty terrible. The answers when I select Claude 3.5 Sonnet as the model for Perplexity always seem incredibly stupid compared to the answers when I use Claude 3.5 Sonnet from Anthropic’s site (which I think is really good).

I like the idea of Perplexity supplying citations, but it seems more like it is parallel construction than citing how the model came up with a particular answer. And, it seems like it is tossing out superior results whenever it cannot pretend to show its work.

[marcosdumay]

> I like the idea of Perplexity supplying citations, but it seems more like it is parallel construction than citing how the model came up with a particular answer.

It's an LLM, throwing whatever text the model says you'll like best. It's amazing that they can hack it to provide links, but if you are expecting it to have a "thought-line" with "traceable research sources", you are just falling for the hype.

[woadwarrior01]

OP has a point. Why is this being downvoted? In my neck of the woods (UK and Ireland), everyone I know using Perplexity Pro, got a free annual subscription with Revolut. Like OP, I tried it for a week and moved on.

Its citations are often bunkum and code generation abilities are very limited, compared to GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet, heck even tiny 4-bit quantized 14B local LLMs are way better at code generation (Qwen 2.5 Coder).