[edgefield]

I strongly disagree. As a simple example, just this week I was looking for ice breaker questions for a work team event. I started with Google and was wading through a myriad of pages stuffed with ads and noise. I happened to have Claude open for an unrelated work experiment and thought to ask Claude for ice breaker questions. It provided 10 good questions and I selected the first two. It’s just a matter of time until we retrain our brains to first use LLMs before Google and then Google’s usage is going to drop like a rock. LLMs for many use cases is simply better, providing better results with far less noise.

[TillE]

That's pretty much the ideal use case for LLMs, as a tool for creative brainstorming where the question of accuracy is irrelevant. I've used them like that frequently for help in writing/worldbuilding.

But I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of Google searches are looking for factual information of some kind. I can see LLMs as an interface on top of search, but not replacing it.

[delfinom]

Until a few more years from now, the AI firms need to make profit and Claude has some special offers to upsell you before giving you a response. Lol