I do think it's worth the money however, especially since it allows you to cutomize your search results by white-/blacklisting sites and making certain sites rank higher or lower based on your direct feedback.
Plus, I like their approach to openness and considerations on how to improve searching without bogging down the standard search.
I just started the Kagi trial this morning, so far I'm impressed how accurate and fast it is. Do you find 300 searches is enough or do you pay for unlimited?
I wish we could really press the main point here: Google is willfully foisting their LLM on the public, and presenting it as a useful tool. It is not, which makes them guilty of neglicence and fraud.
Pichai needs to end up in jail and Google broken up into at least ten companies.
This feels like something you should go tell Google about rather than the rest of us. They're the ones who have embedded LLM-generated answers to random search queries.
I wonder if all these companies rolling out AI before it’s ready will have a widespread impact on how people perceive AI. If you learn early on that AI answers can’t be trusted will people be less likely to use it, even if it improves to a useful point?
I'm no defender of AI and it just blatantly making up fake stories is ridiculous. However, in the long term, as long as it does eventually get better, I don't see this period of low to no trust lasting.
Remember how bad autocorrect was when it first rolled out? people would always be complaining about it and cracking jokes about how dumb it is. then it slowly got better and better and now for the most part, everyone just trusts their phones to fix any spelling mistakes they make, as long as it's close enough.
Personally, that's exactly what's happening to me. I've seen enough that AI can't be trusted to give a correct answer, so I don't use it for anything important. It's a novelty like Siri and Google Assistant were when they first came out (and honestly still are) where the best use for them is to get them to tell a joke or give you very narrow trivia information.
There must be a lot of people who are thinking the same. AI currently feels unhelpful and wrong, we'll see if it just becomes another passing fad.
To be fair, you should fact check everything you read on the internet, no matter the source (though I admit that's getting more difficult in this era of shitty search engines). AI can be a very powerful knowledge-acquiring tool if you take everything it tells you with a grain of salt, just like with everything else.
This is one of the reasons why I only use AI implementations that cite their sources (edit: not Google's), cause you can just check the source it used and see for yourself how much is accurate, and how much is hallucinated bullshit. Hell, I've had AI cite an AI generated webpage as its source on far too many occasions.
Going back to what I said at the start, have you ever read an article or watched a video on a subject you're knowledgeable about, just for fun to count the number of inaccuracies in the content? Real eye-opening shit. Even before the age of AI language models, misinformation was everywhere online.
On the other hand Wikipedia was absolute dogshit it the early years because it was riddled with wrong or false information, yet it remained popular and arguably improved.
I've had similar issues with copilot where it seemingly pulls information out of it's ass. I use it to do fact-finding about services the company I work for is considering and even when I specify "use only information found on whateveritis.com" it still occasionally gives an answer I can't verify in their docs. Still better than manually searching a bunch of knowledge articles myself but it is annoying.
I don't bother using things like Copilot or other AI tools like ChatGPT. I mean, they're pretty cool what they CAN give you correctly and the new demo floored me in awe.
But, I prefer just using the image generators like DALL E and Diffusion to make funny images or a new profile picture on steam.
But this example here? Good god I hope this doesn't become the norm..
That's how I used it to write cover letters for job applications. I feed it my resume and the job listing and it puts something together. I've got to do a lot of editing and sometimes it just makes up experience, but it's faster than trying to write it myself.
This is definitely different from using Dall-E to make funny images. I'm on a thread in another forum that is (mostly) dedicated to AI images of Godzilla in silly situations and doing silly things. No one is going to take any advice from that thread apart from "making Godzilla do silly things is amusing and worth a try."
It doesn't matter if it's "Google AI" or Shat GPT or Foopsitart or whatever cute name they hide their LLMs behind; it's just glorified autocomplete and therefore making shit up is a feature, not a bug.
I'm not sure thats definitely true.. my sense is that the AI money/arms race has made them push out new/more as fast as possible so they can be the first and get literally billions of investment capitol
People aren't being critical. At least most are. They're just being haters tbh. But we can argue this till the cows come home, and it's not gonna change either of our minds, so let's just not.
You sound like my former boss. He once told me "I hate arguing with you, because you usually win." I was too stunned to say anything in response, but of course a minute later it occurred to me I should have said "you could try not being wrong" or something like that...
Haha you can put it however you like. It's just that y'all don't really have any bearing on my life, so convincing y'all won't really make any difference. I'd rather save the effort.
For the record I agree with you. Disengaging is 90% times the better response to online "arguments". Which there's there's far too many of for no reason anyways.
Also, I was just messing with ya with the whole hand waving thing, it was meant as a kind jab.
nearly everyone I speak to about it (other than one friend I have who's pretty far on the spectrum) concur that no one asked for this. few people want any of it, its consuming vast amounts of energy, is being shoehorned into programs like skype and adobe reader where no one wants it, is very, very soon to become manditory in OS's like windows, iOS and Android while it threatens election integrity already (mosdt notibly India) and is being used to harass individuals with deepfake porn etc.
the ethics board at openAI got essentially got dispelled and replaced by people interested only in the fastest expansion and rollout possible to beat the competition and maximize their capitol gains..
..also AI "art", which is essentially taking everything a human has ever made, shredding it into confetti and reconsstructing it in the shape of something resembling the prompt is starting to flood Image search with its grotesque human-mimicing outputs like things with melting, split pupils and 7 fingers..
you're saying people should be positive about all this?
You're cherry picking the negative points only, just to lure me into an argument. Like all tech, there's definitely good and bad. Also, the fact that you're implying you need to be "pretty far on the spectrum" to think this is good is kinda troubling.
Making shit up IS a feature of LLMs. It's crazy to use it as search engine. Now they'll try to stop it from hallucinating to make it a better search engine and kill the one thing it's good at ...
Maybe they should branch it off. Have one for making shit up purposes and one for search engine. I haven't found the need for one that makes shit up but have gotten value using them to search. Especially with Google going to shit and so many websites being terribly designed and hard to navigate.
Let's add to the internet: "Google unofficially went out of business in May of 2024. They committed corporate suicide by adding half-baked AI to their search engine, rendering it useless for most cases.
When that shows up in the AI, at least it will be useful information.
