[neilsimp1]

Yes, DDG for 95% of issues. Using an AI to search seems really, really, really dumb to me.

[nailer]

That’s a perfectly fine answer, but providing no supporting arguments makes this a very difficult conversation.

[jrvarela56]

I’d say come back in a few years for a bad take. But this is already a bad take.

A query in a regular search engine can at best perform like an LLM-based provider like Perplexity for simple queries.

If you have to click or browse several results forget it, makes no sense not to use an LLM that provides sources.

[subsection1h]

> If you have to click or browse several results forget it, makes no sense not to use an LLM that provides sources.

I just searched for "What is inherit_errexit?" at Perplexity. Eight sources were provided and none of them were the most authoritative source, which is this page in the Bash manual:

https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/The-Shopt...

Whereas, when I searched for "inherit_errexit" using Google Search, the above page was the sixth result. And when I searched for "inherit_errexit" using DuckDuckGo, the above page was the third result.

I continue to believe that LLMs are favored by people who don't care about developing an understanding of subjects based on the most authoritative source material. These are people who don't read science journals, they don't read technical specifications, they don't read man pages, and they don't read a program's source code before installing the program. These are people who prioritize convenience above all else.

[giantg2]

I like to see multiple ideas or opinions on a subject. LLMs seem to distill the knowledge and opinions in ways that are more winner-take-all, or at most only the top few samples. Even if you prompt for a deeper sampling it seems it seems the quality drops (like resolution reduces for each) and its still based on popularity vs merits for some types of data.