[verdverm]

Honestly, Ai is the only good way to search the internet anymore, but with my agent looking through the results from multiple search engines, visiting pages, and synthesizing the results into an answer. Google search overview sucks by comparison

[jqpabc123]

and synthesizing the results into an answer.

*An answer* but not necessarily a correct or accurate answer --- and therein lies the problem.

[verdverm]

Humans do the same thing, how is the problem different?

With Ai, I can have multiple agents review the synthesis. When given original source text, they are now quite good at piecing it together with citations. You still have to review as a human, just like when evaluating all the source material when using trad search and clicking a bunch of links. The main advantage of the new method is that it can go through a large number of search results, fetching the page content, and seeing if it actually applies... much faster than I can. I get a much better starting point in much less time.

[jqpabc123]

I get a much better starting point in much less time.

So you're not actually reviewing the results? If you were, the time wouldn't be "much less".

You're getting something that you *assume* is a better starting point but you don't really know if the results are flawed or not.

If Google AI was telling people your mom was an ax murderer, would you *assume* it is providing a good starting point?

This is what AI does --- it lulls people into accepting bad results as a time saver. And this is the root of legal liability issues.

[verdverm]

I review the relevant results, instead of every search link that comes back, many of which are irrelevant. I also spend less time clicking in the browser.

I'm very much human-in-the-loop oriented. If you had seen any of my talks, you would understand this. Please refrain from making assumptions about how everyone uses Ai and putting them into a single classification. It's not what's going on.