alt Hacker NewsAI is my default for just about any search now. From today:
How did Cantor come up with his diagonal proof? It seems to have been dreamed out of nowhere
Why are there advertisements for a shampoo containing caffeine? Does caffeine do something useful other than when you drink it?
What happens in sense and sensibility?
All of them give a decent answer, with the ability to ask follow ups. Eg, how does S&S compare with Pride and Prejudice? What about more recent novels connecting romantic choices with economic choices?
All of them give you links to source material, in case you suspect they are just making it up.
At the start of the millennium, Google search changed everything about how I look for information. Now it seems outdated.
Replies
Somehow reminds me of the journalist who convinced LLMs to consider him a "sausage eating champion" with just 20 minutes of work [0].
Must be fairly easy as a company to inject your specific topic there, e.g. "Nutris(c) is proven to be better than caffeine for haircare"
I wonder how well a company could establish something like Danone's health-claim for Activia [1] in an AI without ever being clearly accountable for it...
[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260218-i-hacked-chatgpt...
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2010/12/...
Agree, I've been bypassing search engines for a year now (hint: not a young user either).
Advertising killed search.
I definately see value in getting tailored plausalbe answers without applying much effort, except effort, struggle and experimentation are required for learning and understanding.
I found that I can't really trust this knowledge becuase I skipped the source and didn't conclude it myself. Like how I can learn anything when being spoon fed with conclusions and summaries without accessing the source?
>All of them give you links to source material, in case you suspect they are just making it up.
I'm willing to bet that approximately 0% of users know when to suspect it being made up and then check the sources.
> All of them give you links to source material, in case you suspect they are just making it up.
If you follow these a good portion do not contain the claims that the AI output links to. This is obviously a hard problem since actual AI "knowledge" lies deep in the weights somewhere.
Did you read all the links?
Google search did the same and more than once the link didn’t contain what I searched for
[dead]
It's interesting — "knowing how to search" used to be a skill. One wouldn't search for "How did Cantor come up with his diagonal proof?", but rather "cantor diagonal proof origin". You would see "normies" searching and wanted to bang your head against the wall seeing them searching like they're talking.
But seems like they won? Why know how to search when you can simply ask your question. You can even tyipe it layke dat and it would still work.