[aparsons]

Strong disagree on this.

I don't treat it like a person, but rather as ChatGPT that has access to Bing's search index. For factual queries ("who invented X? at what company?") it's more reliable than ChatGPT and saves me quite a bit of time. Similarly for content aggregation tasks - I'm *scared* to click on a lot of "Top 10 X", "The best Y in Z" type pages because they're SEO and advert mined. Bing does the initial aggregation for me, and if interesting, I ask it to tell me more about that resource or visit the page myself.

There will always be a segment of people who troll on the internet - that doesn't detract from the immense productivity tool it can be when used correctly.

[akira2501]

> it's more reliable than ChatGPT and saves me quite a bit of time.

What evidence is there that the results you get now are significantly faster or better than the non-AI results you got before? Particularly for queries of the form in your example.. I really wasn't having much difficulty getting those answers before these products existed.

[aparsons]

I generally break these queries into

- the low-hanging fruits (where there is a Wikipedia page or similar for X, and both Google and Bing do a good job of mining these)

- the tougher nuts ("who was the UK prime minister when the wright airplane first flew" - Google and regular Bing fail at this, but Bing chat correctly brings up Arthur Balfour). This was just an example I made up to try - but the ability to connect more dots than plain old search, which is hard to explain but you get a sense of the capability as you use ChatGPT/Bingchat - helps a lot.

[clnq]

I too am optimistic about the tech. And I would even consider myself an early adopter of convolutional NNs and these LLM products in my commercial work.

But we have to state the obvious - Bing chat is not a good substitute for web search now. It is simply too unreliable. You.com has a better implementation of a search chat LLM imho because it quotes web more verbatim and uses more reliable sources. It also doesn’t simulate going on emotional tangents.

Sydney needed more time to mature as a product before Microsoft slapped “Bing” on it. It may still mature, but Microsoft took a big reputation hit for rushing this to market.

[aparsons]

Oh I agree with that. LLM doesn't give you better search - better search {index, ranking, SEO-tolerance, ...} gives you better search.

To me, Bing chat - although imperfect - augments search positively to fill my specific needs.

0) I don't see half a page of ads before the first real result, disguised to look like real results.

1) The interface is clean and noise-free : it takes away a huge context switching load I incur when going into individual results (which for most searches these days, is the top 3-5). I just want the content summarized, with no ads, in a form my brain is used to.

2) I can ask follow-up questions with context, again without ever leaving the interface. Otherwise, the follow up question's answer is often on another website.

3) I can ask more creative questions, which is not really a 'search' feature. Something like 'write a snippet of code'. You can try "unique_ptr in rust - show examples too" and it gives me a passable and concise answer. It presents two options, but to get what I exactly want, I can ask "how to use Box?" as a follow on.

4) It's vastly better at 'connect the dots' queries - see my other comment please.

One underrated feature is the 'next query' suggestions - I can use a single click instead of typing out 'one more example' or see more subtle examples by clicking 'how can I use Box for recursive types?'.

[Jon_Lowtek]

soon these aggregated answers by an ai bing agent will be seo and advert mined as well.