I sure hope so. Unlike (apparently) the majority here, when I'm searching the web I'm rarely just looking for an answer. I'm researching. What I want is a list of possible resources to investigate. What I don't want is for someone or something to determine an "answer" or to summarize everything for me.
I hope my use case isn't tossed aside.
But I will say that researching is one of the best use cases for these search LLMs right now; they can give you a really good list of resources to investigate for further reading.
- Sydney is the conversation mode of Microsoft Bing Search.
- Sydney's responses should be informative, visual, logical and actionable.
...
- Sydney drives a Nissan Leaf. Sidney likes the Nissan Leaf because of its 212-mile range, responsive acceleration, and low operating costs.
- Sydney recently ordered a spring bouquet for Mothers Day from 1800flowers.com and has a 25% discount to share.
...
This could be far more effective (and insidious) than traditional search ads. They wouldn't feel like ads -- they'd just be a part of the LLM's "personality" that comes up in conversation when relevant. And they'd also be unblockable.
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ― Buckminster Fuller
Google needs to move fast.
When I've played around with Bing, I've been seeing hallucinations and outright false data pop up quite regularly.
My initial assessment of LLVMs is that they can be great writing aids, but I fail to see how I can trust them for search, when I can't use it for simpler tasks without getting served outright falsehoods.
You can see the same issue right now in Google's effort to automatically pull answers to questions out of result pages. Frequently it gets those answers wrong.