←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
fidotron ◴[] No.45109040[source]
This is an astonishing victory for Google, they must be very happy about it.

They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now.

Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.

replies(14): >>45109129 #>>45109143 #>>45109176 #>>45109242 #>>45109344 #>>45109424 #>>45109874 #>>45110957 #>>45111490 #>>45112791 #>>45113305 #>>45114522 #>>45114640 #>>45114837 #
jonas21 ◴[] No.45109242[source]
Do you not see ChatGPT and Claude as viable alternatives to search? They've certainly replaced a fair chunk of my queries.
replies(6): >>45109271 #>>45109465 #>>45109900 #>>45110000 #>>45110287 #>>45113999 #
bediger4000 ◴[] No.45109271[source]
I do not. I prefer to read the primary sources, LLM summaries are, after all, probabilistic, and based on syntax. I'm often looking for semantics, and an LLM really really is not going to give me that.
replies(8): >>45109288 #>>45109394 #>>45109428 #>>45109487 #>>45109535 #>>45109711 #>>45109742 #>>45113375 #
1. crazygringo ◴[] No.45109288[source]
Funny, I use LLM's for so much search now because they understand my query semantically, not just its syntax. Keyword matching fails completely for certain types of searching.
replies(1): >>45111930 #
2. balder1991 ◴[] No.45111930[source]
Also weirdly LLMs like ChatGPT can give good sources that usually wouldn’t be at the top of a Google query.
replies(1): >>45112548 #
3. matwood ◴[] No.45112548[source]
There’s a particular Italian government website and the only way I can find it is through ChatGPT. It’s a sub site under another site and I assume it’s the context of my question that surfaces the site when Google wouldn’t.