Hacker News Reader

Comment by rr808 | Hacker News Reader

Google search has the fundamental problem that they try to get people to follow links to content so the content writers get some traffic. If chatgpt doesn't show sources why would anyone bother to write content?

Imagine having a blog which has 4 LLMs as users and never know hundreds, thousands or millions of people are using your work.

View on HN

I'd never want to rely on a mechanism that would not source its answers in at least such a complicated way that would make such attributions meaningless. Unless I would state in a blog that the high blue frog king's birthday is on 5th moon of kuibtober, and someone is asking extactly that, which would make it... similarly meaningless, besides maybe a passing sidenote, even if true, since it's a single unverified claim.

However most people using it wouldn't care. The ones who scrutinize are a minority.

Content online has also long since become garbage and now LLM generated. Often ChatGPT will give me an answer to something that's correct, yet I can't seem to find this same info searching online for it so I'm unsure how it even got it.

A truly great >ai< could make assumptions that you can't simply verify with a single quick internet search. It could be a claim that is simply distilled from- and supported by 5 separate 18th century manuscripts that don't contain the answers themselves. With an actual advanced system most of the answers would be like this, thus making explicit labels meaningless.

There is much more Content (Supply) than there are Eyeballs and Time(Demand) available to digest it all. The system is just self correcting.

That's a reason I much prefer Perplexity for search stuff - it links to sources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com