‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

When did Google get so weird?

2011 points · 1123 comments · sancho-panza

  1. Hugsbox · · focus · HN ↗
    Yesterday I tried to google "can the Halifax Wanderers still make the CPL playoffs?"

    So obviously what appears right at the top is the AI summary, which told me "they've already secured their #4 position and made the playoffs". I knew this wasn't true, and I guess I could have just scrolled down a bit further and found my answer but now I was curious.

    So I said "that's not true, they're still #5, what I want to know is _could they still make the playoffs_"

    It says they've got an upcoming game against Ottawa, and if they win their chances are good. That game has already taken place, so I correct it again and finally I get a reasonable answer.

    My question is: what's the point of the AI in the search engine if it itself isn't going to use the search engine first before answering? Like, I can't wrap my head around that. The answer is on the same page as its hallucination. It could have done a cursory look around before first hallucinating something completely false, and when corrected the first time giving me outdated information. It's meant to be A SEARCH ENGINE!

    1. jswelker · · focus · HN ↗
      I similarly noticed Gemini absolutely refuses to look at a url when I give it one and will instead just hallucinate based on what it thinks the url is. Here I am assuming Google will have the best web capabilities in its AI.
      1. hnbad · · focus · HN ↗
        Literally every experience I've had with Gemini / Google Search AI answers followed this exact pattern, often repeated several times more if I remained persistent instead of just giving up.

        Typical example:

        "Where can I buy <thing I'm looking for that I can't find anywhere using normal search terms>?"

        > You're looking for <related but different and widely available thing>. It is sold by <sites I never heard of>.

        "No, that's different. I'm looking for <that thing but with the exact differences spelled out again>."

        > Ah, my mistake. You're looking for <thing I described>. It is sold by <sites I never heard of but which don't actually sell it>.

        "I've checked your links and none of those sites actually sell it, one doesn't even sell products and instead only offers manufacturing - but also not for what I asked you for."

        > I'm sorry, my bad. Those sites don't sell what you are looking for. Instead you should check out <more sites I've never heard of>.

        "Those sites sell the thing you initially thought I was asking about but not the thing I described."

        > I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. You can find the thing you actually described at <yet more sites including some of the same>.

        "No. None of these sites sell anything close to what I asked you for and two of them don't actually exist."

        > Oh, sorry about that. You're completely right. The thing you asked me about isn't actually being sold by anyone. However you could buy <thing it first thought I meant and that wouldn't bring me any closer to solving my problem>.

        (ad nauseam)

        1. dcrazy · · focus · HN ↗
          LLMs can actually be a good fit in this application if a better search engine feeds them a list of candidate websites that might sell the thing, and the LLM drives a web browser to see if any of the websites have it.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.