Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Nobody knows how to build with AI yet

    (worksonmymachine.substack.com)
    526 points Stwerner | 12 comments | 19 Jul 25 15:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    Flatcircle ◴[19 Jul 25 16:30 UTC] No.44616899[source]▶
    My theory on AI is it's the next iteration of google search, a better more conversational, base layer over all the information that exists on the internet.

    Of course some people will lose jobs just like what happened to several industries when search became ubiquitous. (newspapers, phone books, encyclopedias, travel agents)

    But IMHO this isn't the existential crisis people think it is.

    It's just a tool. Smart, clever people can do lots of cool stuff with tools.

    But you still have to use it,

    Search has just become Chat.

    You used to have to search, now you chat and it does the searching, and more!

    replies(9): >>44616955 #>>44616960 #>>44616976 #>>44617019 #>>44617060 #>>44617065 #>>44617099 #>>44620763 #>>44623695 #
    1. Quitschquat ◴[19 Jul 25 16:42 UTC] No.44617019[source]▶
    Google doesn’t have to change search. It already returns AI generated crap before anything useful.
    replies(5): >>44617042 #>>44617089 #>>44617146 #>>44617504 #>>44617593 #
    2. arrowsmith ◴[19 Jul 25 16:45 UTC] No.44617042[source]▶
    To be fair, Google also returns a lot of useless crap that wasn't generated by AI.
    replies(1): >>44618551 #
    3. patcon ◴[19 Jul 25 16:49 UTC] No.44617089[source]▶
    I have systemic concerns with how Google is changing roles from "knowledge bridging" to "knowledge translating", but in terms of information: I find it very useful.

    You find it gives you poor information?

    replies(1): >>44617210 #
    4. brabel ◴[19 Jul 25 16:54 UTC] No.44617146[source]▶
    I was a bit wary of trusting the AI summaries Google has been including in search results… but after a few checks it seems like it’s not crap at all, it’s pretty good!
    replies(1): >>44617198 #
    5. SoMomentary ◴[19 Jul 25 16:59 UTC] No.44617198[source]▶
    I think their point is that all of the content out there is turning in to AI Slop so it won't matter if search changes because the results themselves have already been changed.
    6. aDyslecticCrow ◴[19 Jul 25 17:01 UTC] No.44617210[source]▶
    Always check the sources. I've personally found it;

    - Using a source to claim the opposite of what the source says.

    - Point to irrelevant sources.

    - Use a very untrustworthy source.

    - Give our sources that do not have anything to do with what it says.

    - Make up additional things like any other LLM without source or internet search capability, despite reading sources.

    I've specifically found Gemeni (the one Google puts at the top of searches) is hallucination-prone, and I've had far better results with other agents with search capability.

    So... presenting a false or made-up answer to a person searching the web on a topic they don't understand... I'd really like to see a massive lawsuit cooked up about this when someone inevitably burns their house down or loses their life.

    replies(2): >>44619181 #>>44622911 #
    7. mrandish ◴[19 Jul 25 17:34 UTC] No.44617504[source]▶
    Append -ai to your query to omit AI results.
    replies(1): >>44622903 #
    8. accrual ◴[19 Jul 25 17:42 UTC] No.44617593[source]▶
    I like the way DuckDuckGo does it - it offers a button to generate a response if you want to, but it doesn't shove it down your throat.

    It's handy when I just need the quick syntax of a command I rarely need, etc.

    9. jenscow ◴[19 Jul 25 19:30 UTC] No.44618551[source]▶
    wasn't generated by their AI, more like
    10. siliconwrath ◴[19 Jul 25 20:41 UTC] No.44619181{3}[source]▶
    I’ve had to report AI summaries to Google several times for telling me restaurant items don’t contain ingredients I'm allergic to, when the cited “source” allergen menu says otherwise. They’re gonna kill someone.
    11. LtWorf ◴[20 Jul 25 08:01 UTC] No.44622903[source]▶
    I appended changing my search engine
    12. LtWorf ◴[20 Jul 25 08:02 UTC] No.44622911{3}[source]▶
    > - Using a source to claim the opposite of what the source says.

    That's because a lot of people do that all the time when arguing online. Cite something without bothering to read it.