Is this true? I feel like most complaints I have and hear about is how inaccurate some of the AI results are. I.e. the mistakes it confidently makes when helping you code.
From hitting enter to a set of relevant answers loaded into your brain, though? Isn't that the goal that should be measured? Against that goal, the two decade old approach seems to have peaked over a decade ago, or phind wouldn't find traction.
For the 20 year old page rankers, time from search to a set of correct answers in your brain is approaching “DNF” -- did not finish.
---
PS. Hallucinations or irrelevant results, both require exercising a brain cell. On a percentage basis, there are fewer hallucinations than irrelevant results, it's just that we gave up on SERP confidence ages ago.
You can have a small model that's cost effective to serve, and gives fast responses, but will be wrong half the time.
Or you can have a large model that's slow to run on cheap hardware, but will give more accurate answers. This is usually only fast enough for personal use.
And the third option with a large model that's fast and accurate, and you'll have to pay Nvidia/Groq/etc. a small fortune to be able to run it at speed and also probably build a solar powerplant to make it cost effective in power use.