Imagine you’re in the car or hands free or disabled and you just want the question answered.
Google's UX is terrible - but a search engine (a tool that can put you right into contact with the FAQ or forum where actual experts are discussing your problem) is always going to be powerful.
If you want to know what the relevant pages are, you need a search index.
I can assure you that it is not. If you download any model off of huggingface, it does not also include an index of the internet.
That screenshot shows the model making a tool call to an external search index.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what I'm saying is:
Google Search Results > LLM results
And yes, that includes:
Google Search Results > Google Summary on search results page