TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Is Google’s 20-year search dominance about to end?

334 点作者 i13e超过 2 年前

67 条评论

acqbu超过 2 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;0ULyU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;0ULyU</a>
Bhilai超过 2 年前
Sorry to break it to you folks but if you hated your data being with Google, you are in for a surprise on how atrociously bad Microsoft is at privacy and security. Multiple close friends who have worked at Microsoft tell me that search history data - who is searching what, is basically sitting in systems with ACLs so bad that 20-30K employees have access through transitive membership of groups. To access a customer&#x27;s data you just need to know token which is logged everywhere and is apparently very easy to generate. I have heard horror stories from them about privacy incidents which never went public.<p>From what I know about Google, they are serious about least privilege type of stuff internally and employees dont get arbitrary unbound access to systems or data.
评论 #34719092 未加载
评论 #34716845 未加载
评论 #34717163 未加载
评论 #34720453 未加载
评论 #34735639 未加载
评论 #34721034 未加载
评论 #34717565 未加载
评论 #34720221 未加载
评论 #34716429 未加载
valley_guy_12超过 2 年前
The article starts, &quot;Nestled in the hills of Mountain View&quot;, which is worrisome, because as anyone with even a passing familiarity with Silicon Valley geography knows, Mountain View is mostly flat. And Google&#x27;s Mountain View offices are located on reclaimed baylands, which are especially flat.<p>I wonder if the article authors were thinking of Xerox PARC&#x27;s offices in Palo Alto&#x27;s hills? Or the road named &quot;Sand Hill Road&quot; that used to have some venture capitalist offices? Other than those offices I can&#x27;t think of any significant hill-based offices in Silicon Valley.
评论 #34717428 未加载
评论 #34719376 未加载
评论 #34718144 未加载
评论 #34717511 未加载
评论 #34725262 未加载
评论 #34720893 未加载
评论 #34720985 未加载
marcopicentini超过 2 年前
It&#x27;s been a while since they stopped innovating.<p>Although Google, Maps, Youtube are of daily use they are monetized exclusively by advertising which is annoying and hated by many. It has been many years since Google has launched an innovative new product.<p>I don&#x27;t think ChatGPT will gain daily traction after this hype. Anyway we could say that MSFT and AMZN have demostrated more power to innovate with different business models (not only adv) and products.<p>The GOOG stock has a PE (Price&#x2F;earning) of 23, while Coca cola 26. So the stock market expect higher growth from CocaCola than Google. Quite surprising.<p>- GOOGLE PE (23): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.macrotrends.net&#x2F;stocks&#x2F;charts&#x2F;GOOGL&#x2F;alphabet&#x2F;pe-ratio" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.macrotrends.net&#x2F;stocks&#x2F;charts&#x2F;GOOGL&#x2F;alphabet&#x2F;pe-...</a><p>- COCA COLA PE (26): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.macrotrends.net&#x2F;stocks&#x2F;charts&#x2F;KO&#x2F;cocacola&#x2F;pe-ratio" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.macrotrends.net&#x2F;stocks&#x2F;charts&#x2F;KO&#x2F;cocacola&#x2F;pe-rat...</a>
评论 #34716969 未加载
评论 #34716308 未加载
评论 #34715737 未加载
评论 #34716242 未加载
评论 #34715934 未加载
评论 #34716348 未加载
评论 #34715823 未加载
评论 #34718343 未加载
评论 #34719584 未加载
评论 #34715789 未加载
评论 #34723800 未加载
评论 #34716240 未加载
评论 #34715663 未加载
college_physics超过 2 年前
It is depressing that people dont recognize that Google has invented and perfected a parasitic business model that has destroyed the internet (and much of tech with it) and this episode feels like just another turn of the downward spiral.<p>The article aims to offer a preliminary analysis of whether Microsoft can become a better parasite: Grabbing the content people generate online, paying nothing, and using it deftly to serve advertisement on the basis of private behavioral traits that are gleaned by prying open and subverting the use of all pieces of IT people use.<p>It is not too difficult by now to imagine alternate tech universes (Philip K Dick style) that have nothing to do with this nightmare, where more or less the same technologies empower individuals and companies and organizations rather than squeezing them dry. The combination of oligopoly status, moral laxity and political dysfunction means we are simply sitting around like sheep discussing whether a new butcher is about to get sharper knives.
评论 #34721054 未加载
评论 #34721030 未加载
评论 #34721071 未加载
评论 #34722598 未加载
评论 #34726673 未加载
评论 #34721097 未加载
评论 #34721115 未加载
dilap超过 2 年前
Microsoft&#x27;s integration of ChatGPT with Bing is really bad. No-one wants a busy search page with a side-bar of ChatGPT; what&#x27;s the point of that?<p>The correct interface for ChatGPT + search is just...ChatGPT. <i>But</i> it can also show you a list of web search results, when it&#x27;s appropriate.<p>A super-clean interface, that always shows you exactly what you want.<p><i>That</i> would be a killer feature and represent a real threat to Google.
评论 #34715806 未加载
评论 #34716093 未加载
评论 #34715900 未加载
评论 #34715983 未加载
评论 #34715777 未加载
评论 #34715927 未加载
评论 #34720546 未加载
评论 #34717467 未加载
评论 #34715757 未加载
评论 #34718151 未加载
ilc超过 2 年前
People seem to forget: AI is about data, the ability to process it, and having a few smart folks to do algorithms. The third part is actually the smallest and easiest part of the trilogy for AI.<p>Google, has all three. The real question is can they not shoot themselves in the foot while doing it.<p>Also SEO will always target the market leader.<p>As far as Bing&#x27;s results: I keep thinking Google is trashy. Then I use Bing and I remember just how good Google is. That&#x27;s my personal opinion. I am NOT going to claim they are SEO, and spam immune, far from. But they seem to do better than Bing in getting what I mean right.<p>ChatGPT may help MS, but is it a bandaid? Is it just a good PR bump? Who knows... Displacing Google is a large task.. and not one I&#x27;m sure I want MS to win. But I look forward to them trying, if only to make Google do better.
评论 #34719100 未加载
评论 #34717012 未加载
评论 #34716218 未加载
danShumway超过 2 年前
I don&#x27;t understand this hype and I feel like I&#x27;m looking at different products than everyone else is. There are very few complaints I have about Google that I think this technology helps solve, and for most of my complaints, getting summaries of searches makes the situation worse, not better. To be completely clear: even if the AI was <i>perfect</i>, I don&#x27;t know that I want even an actual human being to sit down and summarize an answer to my question rather than show me a list of search results.<p>The problem with search is not that our answers aren&#x27;t summarized well, it&#x27;s that the quality of information returned for those searches is getting increasingly worse, and we are getting increasingly worse at categorizing or filtering that information in any useful way. And LLMs pulling information in and summarizing it for me is... not helpful? It&#x27;s summarizing the same garbage, except now sometimes it also summarizes it wrong.<p>But it&#x27;s not even an issue with the quality (although the quality of information from LLMs is also pretty over-hyped I think). Conceptually, I don&#x27;t know that this is a product that I would ever want. I can&#x27;t think of any time where I&#x27;ve sat down to do a search on Google or DuckDuckgo and thought, &quot;You know what I want? I want these results presented to me in a less structured format using natural language and with less granular knowledge about where each specific statement is coming from.&quot;<p>At least Bing seems to be trying to do inline citations in some of its answers, which is a step up over Google&#x27;s AI announcement, I guess?<p>Maybe I&#x27;m just in the minority on that. Users seem to like this a lot. But my ideal version of the Internet is one that decreases the number of abstractions and layers and summaries between myself and primary data rather than increasing them. My ideal Internet is a tool that makes it easier for me to actually find things, not a tool that increases the layers between me and the raw source&#x2F;information that I&#x27;m looking for. I already have enough trouble needing to double-check news summaries of debates, events, and research. Getting another summary of the summaries doesn&#x27;t seem helpful to me?<p>I can think of some ways where I might use an LLM in search, even really exciting ways where maybe it could help with categorization or grouping, but it doesn&#x27;t seem like Google&#x2F;Bing are interested in pursuing any of that. I look at both the Bing and Google announcements and just think, &quot;why are you making it worse?&quot; But who knows, maybe the actual products will sell me on the concept more.
评论 #34719922 未加载
评论 #34718207 未加载
评论 #34716317 未加载
评论 #34718858 未加载
评论 #34720609 未加载
FridgeSeal超过 2 年前
I do not understand the appeal or gpt-powered searches.<p>Most of my web searches are for looking up specific things, to find the specific link(s) that contains the information I need. These aren’t searches that are going to be made better or faster by an ML model-they’re not natural language queries, they’re just a bunch of terms.
评论 #34716390 未加载
评论 #34716105 未加载
评论 #34717505 未加载
评论 #34717558 未加载
评论 #34718443 未加载
fdgsdfogijq超过 2 年前
How could they have left such a massive gap in their product. They literally have the model and resources to revolutionize search. We all know LLMs will hurt their ad revenue, but regardless they have to have known this was coming. This is so similar to FB getting caught off guard by TikTok. There was a gap in the utility of their product (TikTok enabled grass roots content creation), and they just left it wide open.<p>Its some combination of:<p>1. ChatGPT is so much better than previous versions that Google themselves was stunned by the utility.<p>2. Incompetence&#x2F;Gross negligence across Google<p>3. No way for them to reconcile the lost ad revenue, so they released nothing. This case is hard to argue for, as they would know theyre a sitting duck.<p>Regardless I am hoping for a massive Google failure. Theyre the ones responsible for the SEO content waste land that is the modern internet. We have all suffered at the feet of their ad machine
评论 #34715863 未加载
theonlybutlet超过 2 年前
Bing is my default on my work and home PC as I use edge, I&#x27;ve been too lazy to change it. For the most part, whenever I accidentally search something on Bing, I end up having to open up Google and search it again. Their results are still way better.
marricks超过 2 年前
I think it’s interesting to consider why touchscreen mobile phones won out over their predecessors.<p>Touchscreens are the worst interface option. The feedback of feeling a button, or anything made for the job, is better than typing without specific feedback onto a screen. It won out because of you don’t have a set interface it’s bettor.<p>Now for search, chat gpt will likely always be less reliable than a list of results you can vet yourself for content and source.<p>That said… I don’t think people care about truth that much these days so one response that feels correct is could be good enough for most. Terrifying times we live in folks.
评论 #34715676 未加载
评论 #34715731 未加载
评论 #34715627 未加载
评论 #34716787 未加载
s-xyz超过 2 年前
Have the feeling that we are in a state of overreacting (news outlets love the headlines).<p>In addition, my gut feeling says that Google does things better than Microsoft.<p>This comes from my experience with working with Google and GCP products vs working with Microsoft Office&#x2F;Windows and Azure.<p>With Google, everything feels consistent, well documented and well presented: from Meet&#x2F;Gmail to BigQuery, Tensorflow, Cloud SQL, Firebase, etc.<p>With Microsoft I frequently observe inconsistencies in design patterns, broken links and outdated documentation. Just compare for example Office products, the concept of Office 365, Live Account vs Outlook account, Windows, Bing, Azure products, etc. Basically its hard to find any commonality and it feels that there is generally a lack of vision for the entire suit.<p>I therefore extrapolate that Google will answer this hype in a more structured way, anchored to a vision, putting it against a grand scheme of things and deliver it as a seemingly integrated solution to the suite.
评论 #34719173 未加载
rexreed超过 2 年前
Judging from the decreasing quality of Google Search I&#x27;d say they&#x27;ve been doing it to themselves over the past decade regardless of large language models or not. However, that being said, Google is still super dominant and when people say &quot;SEO&quot; they generally mean Google search results. And until my mom stops using Google as the default search, I wouldn&#x27;t count them out of being the dominant search engine for some time.
chias超过 2 年前
While Google certainly has its faults and I am frustrated with its trajectory, I would bet money that this is an article pushing the nonsensical notion that AI language models will replace search engines.<p>Edit: based on the subtitle, it seems like I am correct.
评论 #34715626 未加载
评论 #34717056 未加载
kweingar超过 2 年前
I am really perplexed by people talking about the end of traditional web search.<p>I guess HN users tend to look up lots of facts and whatnot. But generative AI is not a better UX for queries like &quot;LeBron James instagram&quot; or &quot;wordle&quot; or &quot;Avatar 3 release date&quot; or &quot;WSJ&quot; or &quot;Spanish to English&quot; or &quot;cricket news&quot;.
评论 #34720682 未加载
Invictus0超过 2 年前
Do you people really want AI generated answers? As if the internet wasn&#x27;t bland enough as it is. This forum has been soapboxing for years about the longtail of blogs and BBs and niche sites, right up to the moment that Bing got chatgpt.
评论 #34717025 未加载
评论 #34715630 未加载
trieste92超过 2 年前
Let me guess what this article and thread will have:<p>&gt; BIG TECH AI CHATBOT GOLDRUSH!!!!!!<p>&gt; &quot;Google sucks now, I use Kagi&#x2F;DDG&#x2F;Searx instead&quot;<p>&gt; &quot;I have to quote search to get the results I want. Google has seriously gone downhill&quot;<p>Can we cut the shit for two seconds? It was never all that great to begin with. None of them were.<p>Also, these news outlets are just fucking lazy and need to go outside and do actual journalism instead of regurgitating the same trash over and over. ChatGPT is less redundant than they are
Ingaz超过 2 年前
I think that ChatGPT3 does not matter a lot.<p>But a lot of people fed up with Google and will be glad to try something different.<p>It&#x27;s like when Apple came and eat 15-20% of market of notebooks.<p>Dominance of Microsoft still not ended.<p>Actually I suspect that Yandex search is better - I like how they preview answers for technical questions. Picture search - seems that Google is the worst.<p>Maybe it&#x27;s time to start search different topics in different engines.<p>Hm. Actually AI could help to implement such functionality
评论 #34716851 未加载
评论 #34717399 未加载
评论 #34717177 未加载
siva7超过 2 年前
So i tried Bing again after almost a decade for their ChatGTP integration. I can&#x27;t be the only one who thought this is Yahoo&#x2F;AltaVista&#x2F;Lycos&#x2F;etc. revisited. It&#x27;s a fucking portal spamming me with news coverage, not a search engine
评论 #34720739 未加载
chem83超过 2 年前
Microsoft&#x27;s insistence on reusing the bing brand and website is baffling to me. No one wants to use that shit, but in classical Microsoft fashion, they&#x27;re too attached to old decisions. What a missed opportunity to do like they did with IE and kill it in favor or something new and fresh.<p>Ultimately, Microsoft will make it easier for Google to catch up because its internal culture is and will continue to be unchanged, no matter how much technology they inject from OpenAI. Make no mistake, behind the shiny PR, it&#x27;s still the messy Bing AI organization, the demoralized Microsoft Research organization and good ol&#x27; Microsoft.
fleddr超过 2 年前
The concern is not whether Google or Microsoft is first, the attention should go to web publishers. If ChatGPT as a search engine works well, it would mean that the user gets a direct answer without ever hitting the website.<p>Which begs the question...why produce any content at all? It will be gobbled up by AI and you&#x27;ll never hear back. Thanks, I guess.<p>I can think of one issue delaying this inevitability: consumer laziness. Most people type one or two words, usually misspelled. That makes for a pretty poor AI prompt.
kazinator超过 2 年前
&gt; <i>Once trained on this giant corpus of natural language, the chatbot can, when prompted by users’ instructions, produce a fluently written answer rather than merely serving up a list of links.</i><p>A word salad of untrustworthy bullshit instead of the pages you were looking for is not going to upend search.<p>It&#x27;s not a replacement for search in any way.<p>Now if the search engine could find pages which satisfy complex queries in natural language, referencing content and relationships among content, that could be something.
评论 #34717608 未加载
stephc_int13超过 2 年前
Google is already a zombie company, and has been for some time, still insanely rich and powerful, but they&#x27;re not cool anymore and I think they could be replaced very easily.<p>Large corporations can seemingly stay alive and kicking for a long time after their death. Nokia, Kodak, Palm, RIM just to name a few.<p>I&#x27;ve witnessed the demise of Palm, then Nokia and RIM, following similar patterns, when they start reacting it is already over.<p>RIP Google.
khoobid_shoma超过 2 年前
I asked ChatGPT that if it can replace Google search engine. It says :<p>&quot;As an AI language model, I do not have opinions or personal thoughts. However, it is unlikely that chatbots like ChatGPT will replace traditional search engines like Google in the near future. While chatbots like me can provide quick answers to specific questions and engage in conversational interactions, they still have limitations and are not as comprehensive or efficient as search engines like Google. Google and other search engines have access to vast amounts of information and use complex algorithms to deliver relevant and accurate results.<p>That being said, chatbots like me can complement traditional search engines by providing an alternative, more conversational interface for accessing information. Additionally, advances in natural language processing and AI technology may lead to chatbots becoming more sophisticated and capable of handling more complex tasks in the future.&quot;
guyzero超过 2 年前
Considering people still go to Bing just to type &quot;Google&quot; I think the answer is no.
评论 #34720267 未加载
kikokikokiko超过 2 年前
The quality of Google search has decreased so much over the last few years that I had to resort to using Yandex, a company that has a budget that is orders of magnitude smaller that the Big G and is under the control of a dictatorship. Google search has two huge problems: SEO and censorship. Search for anything related to products&#x2F;torrents&#x2F;streams&#x2F;politics on Google and your results will SUCK, due to one of the two reasons stated above.<p>The recent Yandex hack&#x2F;leak has the cynic in me connecting the dots and, seeing how Google search seems to be facing REAL threats to it&#x27;s dominance since it&#x27;s creation... maybe some guys with the deepest pockets in the world are starting to enter WAR mode.<p>Destroying Yandex advantages on the SEO battlefield by way of divulging their parameters to the world would be the Franz Ferdinand assassination moment of the Great Search War.
snehk超过 2 年前
I hope so or unless Google changes &quot;back&quot; to when it actually did what I told it to. This might sound weird but one of my skills is that I know (or knew) how to use Google. I would not just type in whatever I needed to find, I would know to exclude specific terms using &quot;-term&quot;, put parts of a sentence in quotation marks, add other terms I knew would be on the site where the answer could be found and whatnot. The search is then very specific and if I didn&#x27;t get a satisfying answer it was because I needed to improve my query. Now whenever I do that, Google takes this query and modifies it without me knowing what they&#x27;re actually doing. It seems harder and harder to tell Google to just work like it used to.
motoxpro超过 2 年前
I said it in another post but AI is a feature, not a product. You just add it on. It doesn&#x27;t become &quot;the thing.&quot; People that are saying this are the same people that said Stories would kill Instagram or Facebook. It&#x27;s just a feature you add in.
gcanyon超过 2 年前
Probably not because of Bing&#x27;s most recent moves, but inevitably, yes -- depending on your definition of &quot;about to&quot; and your definition of &quot;end&quot;.<p>Search in general, and specifically Google search, depends on Adwords for revenue similar to how newspapers used to depend on classified ads. Once ChatGPT.next or something similar removes the opportunity to display ads that people will click on, search will face a similar crisis of revenue to newspapers. Maybe Google will figure out the economics of the new landscape, but it certainly won&#x27;t hold the same position of prominence in the internet at large as it does now.
lvl102超过 2 年前
ChatGPT is still a novelty. People will kick tires etc but utility is just not there yet.
评论 #34716192 未加载
scubadude超过 2 年前
If anything kills Google search it&#x27;s the ads. Search for a product and the first page can entirely be ads or sales links. You have to specifically search to find reviews (many of which are likely paid reviews), and search even harder to find actual real user reports. Typically I add &quot;site:reddit.com&quot; to the end of any search where I want to read people&#x27;s opinions of a product.
评论 #34717441 未加载
jasmer超过 2 年前
Yes and no.<p>Yes, finally we are going to see a shift, but their &#x27;dominance&#x27; is not going to necessarily change that much in some kind of &#x27;step function&#x27;.<p>I suggest that Siri is about to get a lot better, and act more like we wanted it to act a decade ago.<p>As amazing as ChatGPT is, it&#x27;s actually not that useful for most regular people other than as a more human form of search.<p>I think Google results will improve quickly enough that whatever MS does will seem novel but not necessarily have some kind of huge consumer impact.<p>We&#x27;ll see search for company info and help directories get a lot better.<p>Remember that both MS and Google are &#x27;etablished&#x27; companies, the later a bit slow moving and not firing on all fronts.<p>Why would anyone think a company that can&#x27;t get Skype to work, is going to marvel the world with some &#x27;new thing&#x27;.<p>OpenAI folks are on a roll, rapidly trying to make cool looking experiments, focused on &#x27;wowing the world&#x27; not on direct revenues. Making that translate into products is another dimension altogether.<p>The most interesting stuff will come from startups.
endisneigh超过 2 年前
I’d be curious to hear from someone who has a non trivial amount of money shorting Google. Anyone can say Google sucks.
评论 #34716448 未加载
bilekas超过 2 年前
As an aside I guess, I have noticed recently how much worse the search actually is. I&#x27;m not even referring to the adds, simple things around library documentation for example, where I would always find the best results up top to close to, now I get quite unrelated results, not even containing the phrase&#x2F;function name I&#x27;m searching.<p>This is not because the info is not indexed or is behind a walled garden though, I now have to find the source website and go directly to their docuemtation myself, or their github. It&#x27;s not an &#x27;issue&#x27; but defeats the purpose of google search itself.<p>In a strange change for me particularly, for news&#x2F;general info I actually will search through sites like reddit or twitter to get some actual targeted results.
ElectricSpoon超过 2 年前
My fear is that more AI will hinder our ability to literally search for stuff. The future I dread includes more profiling, a stronger search bubble, all of which will just make it the death of the objective search engine. As fascinating as AI can be, I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s what search engines are missing. That is certainly not what I need.<p>Even today, engines rank your results by geoip, trying to be smarter than you ask them to be. Two individuals doing the same quoted search will get different results. Perhaps I&#x27;m just getting old, but I do miss when searching was a matter of writing a good query, not a matter of what the engine thinks you will want to ask next and what else might interest you.
评论 #34734013 未加载
fareesh超过 2 年前
Google has figured out how to scale search to the current number of requests per second<p>Scaling a ChatGPT like product to that level would be challenging I assume - and extremely expensive. Is that correct?
评论 #34719199 未加载
ahmetnoid超过 2 年前
I remember Peter Thiel once said that investing in google is investing against innovation, that the company had no competition for a very long time, and that they see no reason to why they needed to reinvent themselves. As long as there&#x27;s no threat to the company, they can just maintain the current tech and harvest the green from it. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=2Q26XIKtwXQ">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=2Q26XIKtwXQ</a>
ergonaught超过 2 年前
“Search” relevance seems as secure as they’ll let it be (ie: it’s their own fault if lose that due to self-inflicted distraction).<p>Their challenge in that particular area is the relevance of “search” itself.<p>Most of that decline can be attributed to them indirectly via the behaviors they incentivized (and LLMs will now nail that coffin shut), with the social media siloes playing their part.<p>But they shouldn’t lose an edge here unless they give it away. Never say never.
ideamotor超过 2 年前
The problem for Google is that they&#x27;ve already taken a ChatGPT approach of providing inaccurate information. The feature snippets are basically proto-ChatGPT, and as the internet has gained content, most of the top links are also inaccurate. You basically have to append a specific Website to your search to get anything decent.
photochemsyn超过 2 年前
If Google were ever to remove the &#x27;verbatim&#x27; option (which is lacking in other search engines like Bing as far as I can tell) it would become much less useful.<p>Unfortunately, one cannot enable both &#x27;time&#x27; and &#x27;verbatim&#x27; option under Tools in Google Search. I guess I should go ask ChatGPT why that is the case...
paulpauper超过 2 年前
It&#x27;s way too premature to say that ChatGPT will overtake Google, not to mention Google still derives about half of its income from Youtube and 3rd party publisher ads. Every few years the media runs with some story about how Bing, Yahoo or whatever will overtake Google. Never even comes close.
评论 #34716567 未加载
mgh2超过 2 年前
&gt; For generative ai to make real money, it will need to find uses in “navigational” searches (looking for a site’s internet address by its name) and especially “commercial” ones (“Best new ski boots this season”).<p>Serve users what they want, deals to hunt for: Apple Maps. Leverage Foursquare and Yelp lessons.
josefresco超过 2 年前
Let us think about the defaults in our life:<p>Windows: Most use Chrome (Google default), the rest use Edge (Bing default).<p>MacOS: Safari (Google default) and Chrome (Google default)<p>Android: Chrome (Google default)<p>iOS: Safari (Google default)<p>So it looks like the only vulnerability here would be iOS and then possibly PC&#x2F;MacOS if enough users switch their browser.
评论 #34716162 未加载
评论 #34716031 未加载
tootie超过 2 年前
Betteridge&#x27;s law right here. I don&#x27;t see how ChatGPT is going to do anything in the search space and it&#x27;s stunning to see people tripping over themselves to declare Microsoft the winner already. I&#x27;m already predicting they will write down this acquisition for a few billion in 2 or 3 years.<p>AI question and answer searches have existed for a while. Alexa does an equivalent job as ChatGPT and I find it to rarely be useful. Google&#x27;s stroke of genius was to skip curation and algorithmic ranking in favor of a heuristic. Namely, PageRank. I know it&#x27;s gone through years of refinement, tuning and tinkering, but the fundamental basis of popularity is just a way more reliable and durable approach than trying to intuit what people want based on what&#x27;s on the page. You&#x27;d absolute be back to dark days of blackhat SEOs bombing results by inundating GPT with keywords. It won&#x27;t work. The popularity model works with and only with a network effect of having zillions of successful searches to mine. Maybe Bing has just enough data to be useful and maybe ChatGPT can do a marginally better job of giving boxed answers to specific questions, but that&#x27;s not the thing that makes search valuable.
rafaelturk超过 2 年前
Well I&#x27;m done with Google, looking forward ChatGPT and Bing being serious competition
jay_kyburz超过 2 年前
I don&#x27;t want an AI trained on the sea of garbage that is the modern web to answer my questions, but I would love an AI to draw on a curated, hand crafted, trusted database of the worlds knowledge.
jdlyga超过 2 年前
This is like Amazon getting leapfrogged by an upstart shipping subscription service. The cornerstone of Google is search, and everything else depends on that.
alexfromapex超过 2 年前
It&#x27;s honestly shocking that it&#x27;s had such a long run. An increase in high quality ways to sift through information will be a net benefit for society.
swayvil超过 2 年前
I actually prefer Bing these days. (And I don&#x27;t even run Windows)<p>Google search results are just screwy. Probably all that money is interfering with the algorithm.
rvz超过 2 年前
<p><pre><code> No. </code></pre> The one to end Google’s search dominance is an open source ChatGPT alternative. That will disrupt both Google, Bing and OpenAI.<p>It’s that simple.
amelius超过 2 年前
My main worry: what will happen to my data if Google loses its position and shareholders start pressing for draconian measures?
sys32768超过 2 年前
Maybe what we need is an all-seeing AI browser plug-in that transforms and decrapifies the SERPS and sites themselves.
tpoacher超过 2 年前
Whoever commissioned this article has some serious trading strategy in mind for the next couple of weeks ...
anothernewdude超过 2 年前
It amazes me how good OpenAI&#x27;s PR team have been at spinning nothing into people going crazy.
pleb_nz超过 2 年前
Even without AI assistance it&#x27;s no longer the best search product.
chadlavi超过 2 年前
Wait the thing the article proposes might displace google is... _Microsoft Bing_?<p>Absolutely ludicrous.
thrill超过 2 年前
Probably, and it&#x27;s more self induced than due to the quality of the competition.
29athrowaway超过 2 年前
This is not a real phenomenon, but the ad revenue from this article will.
diogenescynic超过 2 年前
Even a duopoly is better than a monopoly.
outside1234超过 2 年前
No
gcanyon超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m old enough that I remember switching between Yahoo, AskJeeves, AltaVista, and others, before abandoning them all for Google. I also remember experimenting with a friend to test the search engines, and I remember the question&#x2F;query I used to perform the test: I had (at the time) a vague recollection that the level of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans near the Panama Canal is different; that in addition to raising ships over the isthmus, the canal has to raise them overall in one direction, and lower them in the other. That seems bizarre, since the oceans are connected south of South America, but that was my memory, so I asked the search engines. Google was the one engine that returned sites that confirmed my vague memory.<p>So of course, I just tried this with ChatGPT. It glitched mid-response, but here&#x27;s the entire exchange:<p>Me: Is the level of the ocean the same on both sides of the Panama Canal?<p>ChatGPT: No, the ocean level is not the same on both sides of the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal is a man-made waterway that connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean, and its locks raise and lower ships to accommodate differences in sea level between the two oceans. -- Load failed -- I hit retry The Atlantic Ocean side of the canal is higher than the Pacific Ocean side, with a difference in elevation of approximately 26 meters (85 feet). This difference in elevation is compensated for by a system of locks, which raise and lower ships to the appropriate level for transit through the canal. The locks fill with water from the higher ocean and drain into the lower ocean, allowing ships to pass from one ocean to the other without having to navigate significant differences in sea level.<p>Me: Why is the level of the ocean different?<p>ChatGPT: The difference in sea level between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal is due to various geological and oceanographic factors.<p>One of the main reasons is the shape of the landmass and ocean basins. The Atlantic Ocean is relatively shallow and has a broader continental shelf, while the Pacific Ocean is deeper and has a narrower shelf. This shape influences the ocean currents and tides, and helps to maintain a difference in sea level between the two oceans.<p>Another factor is the prevailing winds and currents in the region. The trade winds in the Pacific and the prevailing westerlies in the Atlantic both play a role in shaping the sea levels on their respective sides of the canal.<p>Additionally, the location of the Panama Canal at the narrowest point of the Central American isthmus has a significant impact on the difference in sea level between the two oceans. The geography of the region funnels ocean currents and water into the narrow channel, leading to differences in water pressure and sea level on either side.<p>In summary, the difference in sea level between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal is due to a combination of geological and oceanographic factors, including the shape of the landmass and ocean basins, prevailing winds and currents, and the geography of the region.<p>-- comment -- Although ChatGPT is correct that the levels differ, it is wrong about the amount: it&#x27;s nowhere near 85 feet. It gives believable reasons for the difference, but doesn&#x27;t mention tides, which (as I understand it) are a significant factor. It also doesn&#x27;t mention salinity, which (again, as I understand it) is also a factor. I gave it a chance to catch the error:<p>Me: Is the difference really 85 feet?<p>ChatGPT: The difference in elevation between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal is approximately 26 meters, or approximately 85 feet. However, it&#x27;s worth noting that this figure can vary slightly due to tides, seasonal changes, and other factors. The exact difference in elevation can also depend on the specific location within the canal, as some areas may be slightly higher or lower than others. Nevertheless, the difference in elevation between the two sides is typically around 85 feet.<p>-- Comment -- No luck correcting that 85 feet number. I also asked about tides and salinity:<p>Me: Do tides or salinity contribute to the difference?<p>ChatGPT: Tides and salinity can contribute to the difference in sea level between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal, but the main factor is the shape of the landmass and ocean basins, the prevailing winds and currents, and the geography of the region.<p>Tides do have an impact on the sea level in the canal, as they can cause fluctuations in the water level on both sides. However, the impact of tides on the difference in sea level between the two oceans is relatively small compared to the other factors mentioned above.<p>Salinity can also influence the sea level, as differences in salinity can cause water to expand or contract, leading to changes in sea level. However, the impact of salinity on the difference in sea level between the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Panama Canal is also relatively small, as differences in salinity in the canal are primarily caused by fresh water inputs from rivers and rainfall, rather than differences in ocean salinity.<p>In summary, while tides and salinity can contribute to the difference in sea level in the Panama Canal, the main factor is the shape of the landmass and ocean basins, the prevailing winds and currents, and the geography of the region.<p>-- Comment -- Much has been made of ChatGPT&#x27;s (sometimes unfounded) confidence. I don&#x27;t know enough about the ocean-level subject to judge here. Clearly ChatGPT is confident, but is it correct? I don&#x27;t know. Given that a quick Google search wasn&#x27;t able to convince me that ChatGPT is wrong (apart from the 85 feet thing) I&#x27;m calling this even on the facts. The experience asking ChatGPT was clearly easier than Google.
评论 #34717654 未加载
评论 #34716409 未加载
iamgopal超过 2 年前
No.
karmasimida超过 2 年前
No<p>Unless Bard sucks too much
评论 #34715666 未加载
评论 #34715611 未加载
RosanaAnaDana超过 2 年前
The gaming of SEO has been quietly destroying the utility of search writ large as a mechanism for quite a while.<p>Over the last year, its become palpable.<p>Google has such utility in this regard that in some cases, a hallucinating lie-machine offers better answer than an index of what information is available on the internet.<p>This issue with with Googles failure to respond to the deluge of SEO driven content in their searches. They can do better. They&#x27;ve chosen to not do so.
评论 #34715816 未加载
评论 #34715979 未加载
评论 #34715915 未加载
评论 #34715683 未加载
评论 #34715667 未加载
评论 #34716299 未加载
评论 #34716070 未加载
评论 #34715671 未加载
评论 #34716184 未加载
评论 #34716570 未加载
评论 #34715908 未加载
评论 #34716153 未加载
评论 #34715912 未加载
saudade97超过 2 年前
I don&#x27;t get the HN hate of Google as a search tool. Yes, SEO has made searching more difficult, but Google is still by far the best search engine provided that your searches are focused and you use search tools (e.g., excluding terms, focusing on certain sites, etc.). I&#x27;ve tried other search engines (e.g., DDG, Bing) and they just aren&#x27;t as good as Google.
评论 #34715935 未加载
评论 #34715838 未加载
评论 #34715802 未加载
评论 #34716150 未加载
评论 #34716679 未加载
评论 #34716160 未加载
dontreact超过 2 年前
I would bet money that the answer here is no
评论 #34715617 未加载
评论 #34715548 未加载
评论 #34715603 未加载
评论 #34715639 未加载