LONDON (AP) — You're not alone. Many people believe that Google search is getting worse.And that The rise of generative AI chatbots We're giving people new and different ways to search for information.
Google has been a one-stop shop for decades, and after all, we commonly refer to search as “Google,” thanks to its long-standing dominance. , there has been an influx of sponsored links, spam links, and junk content aided by “search engine optimization” techniques. It really depresses useful results.
a Recent research by German researchers This suggests that the quality of results from Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo is actually decreasing. Google cites third-party measurements and says its results are of significantly higher quality than its competitors.
Chatbots currently have the following features: generative artificial intelligenceGoogle itself is changing the way search works. But they have their own problems. The technology is so new that Concerns about the accuracy and reliability of AI chatbots.
If you want to try the AI method, see the following methods:
Where can I find AI search tools?
Google users don't have to look far. The company launched its own AI chatbot assistant last year. known as a minstrelbut recently retired that name And we replaced it with Gemini, a similar service.
Bard users are now redirected to: gemini sitewhich can be accessed directly from your desktop or mobile browser.
The Gemini app was also released in the US this month, and is rolling out in Japanese, Korean, and English worldwide, excluding the UK, Switzerland, and Europe, with more countries and languages ”coming soon,” according to an update notice. is suggested.
Google is also testing a new search service called Search Generative Experience that replaces links with AI-generated snapshots of important information. However, it is limited to users in the US who sign up as an experiment. Laboratory site.
Microsoft's Bing search engine offers generative AI searches powered by: OpenAI's ChatGPT technology For about a year, it was initially under this name. Bing Chatnow rebranded as Copilot.
On the Bing Search home page, below the search window.[チャット]or[コパイロット]Clicking the button will take you to a conversational interface where you can enter your questions. There is also a Copilot app.
a Many startup AI search sites It has appeared, but it is not easy to find. A standard Google search isn't very helpful, but a search for Copilot and Bard turned up many names, including Perplexity, HuggingChat, You.com, Komo, Andi, Phind, Exa, AskAI, and more.
Do I need to sign up or pay a fee?
Most of these services have free versions. The number of queries you can create is usually limited, but premium levels are offered that offer smarter AI and more features.
For example, Gemini users can pay $20 for the advanced version, which comes with access to its “most capable” model, Ultra 1.0.
Gemini users must be signed in to a Google Account and be at least 13 years old (18 years old in Europe or Canada). Copilot users don't need to sign in to a Microsoft account and can access the service through Bing search or the Copilot homepage.
Most startup sites are free to use and do not require you to set up an account. Many also have premium levels.
How do I perform AI search?
AI queries should be conversational, rather than typing a series of keywords. For example, “Is Taylor Swift the most successful female musician?” “Where is a good place to travel in Europe this summer?”
Perplexity advises using “everyday natural language.” Find says it's best to ask “complete, detailed questions” that start with “what” and “how.”
If you're not satisfied with the answer, some sites allow you to ask additional questions to narrow down the information you need. Some provide suggested questions or related questions.
Microsoft's Copilot lets you choose between three different chat styles: Creative, Balanced, and Precise.
What are the results?
Unlike Google's search results, which display a list of links, including sponsored links. AI chatbot It spits out easy-to-read summaries of information. Include some important links, possibly as footnotes. The answer varies from site to site, sometimes significantly.
These are useful, for example, when searching for ambiguous facts, such as details about an incident. european union policy.
The answers from Phind.com were the easiest to read and were consistently presented in a narrative format. However, the site mysteriously went offline at some point.
Test a simple query. What is the average temperature in London in late February? — Most sites gave a similar range of results: 7 to 9 degrees Celsius (45 to 48 degrees Fahrenheit).
Curiously, Andi provided current weather conditions for New York, but subsequent retries used the correct city.
Another search, the name and tenure of the CEO of British luxury car maker Aston Martin, is information available online, but it takes a bit of work to put it together.
Most sites have been named in the past 10 to 20 years. AskAI provided a list dating back to 1947 and its top three “authoritative sources,” but no links.
What are the disadvantages?
Chatbots generate answers that sound like they were written by a confident human, which may make them sound authoritative, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're right. AI chatbots are known for providing seemingly convincing responses, known as “hallucinations.” Hugging Chat warns that “content generated may be inaccurate or false,” and Gemini says it may “display inaccurate information, including information about people.” .
These AI systems scan vast pools of information culled from the web, known as large-scale language models, and use algorithms to come up with consistent answers, but how do they all arrive at that response? It does not make it clear.
Some AI chatbots publish models on which their algorithms are trained. Others provide little or no details. The best advice is to try multiple methods, compare results, and always double-check the source.
For example, at one point Mr. Como claimed that Canada's population in 1991 was approximately 1 million people and stood by this incorrect number even though I asked if it was true. The paper cited a Wikipedia page that said the figure was taken from a table of the country's indigenous population. I tried again later and found the correct number.
___
Do you have a technical challenge you need help solving? Contact us [email protected] along with your question.
