[devin]

"just gives you the answer" is a problem when it is offered without context, sourcing, etc.

Such is the case for people trying to poison--ahem "influence" LLM results for "what is the best restaurant in $my_locale". You're playing a dangerous game.

[Waterluvian]

> 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]

> 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.

[pessimizer]

> Does it show relevant snippets for each of the 9 URLs? If not, then it's as bad as Google's AI summary.

Sounds like you're saying that the LLM isn't any better than Google's LLM-created snippets. The claim was that Google has no moat against LLMs, and your evidence against this claim is Google's LLM generated content.

[BeetleB]

The discussion is about Google Search results vs LLM services (summary or otherwise).

So what I'm saying is:

Google Search Results > LLM results

And yes, that includes:

Google Search Results > Google Summary on search results page