• antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    they’re a great use in surfacing information that is discussed and available, but might be buried with no SEO behind it to surface it

    This is what I’ve seen many people claim. But it is a weak compliment for AI, and more of a criticism of the current web search engines. Why is that information unavailable to search engines, but is available to LLMs? If someone has put in the work to find and feed the quality content to LLMs, why couldn’t that same effort have been invested in Google Search?

    • kitnaht@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      If someone has put in the work to find and feed the quality content to LLMs, why couldn’t that same effort have been invested in Google Search?

      I’d rather a world where 10 companies can compete with google search with AIs, than where they dump money into a monopoly.

      • antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        If you don’t feel like discussing this and won’t do anything more than deliberately miss the point, you don’t have to reply to me at all.

        • kitnaht@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          The content is not unavailable to search engines. AI LLMs simply are better at surfacing it. I don’t know what point you were trying to make that I missed, it wasn’t on purpose, I assure you.