GPT is the new Google at least for me... yesterday at Thanksgiving a cousin wanted to play a game she brought. She taught us but forgot two rules that GPT knew (the Pit). I didnt have do a search, look through results or click thru various sites to find exactly the fringe info I sought about this game. GPT just provided the nitty gritty details immediately and when I needed to ask for another rule GPT retained what i searched for previously so i didnt have type a long query.
Google seems to be getting it's butt handed to them with the US government recent ruling and GPT's rise.
Im just hoping GPT releases their own AI Phone .. GPT Phone sounds cool to me. A Siri on iPhone that works like GPT won't be available til Spring 2026. GPT and maybe Microsoft have opportunity to take a chunk of the phone market.
Google was never meant to be a q&a platform, it’s just a simple way to get into business websites… ye if you need an assistant, ChatGPT and even Gemini (which I believe you have not played with yet) can give you what you need, OpenAI is still in red numbers and AI models like Claude or Gemini are stepping over it, if you need a great assistant in your phone get Gemini, they even have “Live (voice)” which is way better than any available assistant yet (available on Android or IPhone) if you need to go even deeper into the rabbit hole, get a pixel…
Google searching for the answer would've taken a lot longer ... i and everyone wants their answer immediately in front of them vs. the antiquated Google search riddled with ads compared to GPT's clean in your face instant results!
I want this experience from Siri (on my phone when I pick it up) now but Apple is too far behind so look forward to an AI Phone called GPT ;-) in the next 6 to 12 months ( hopefully OpenAI & Microsoft are smart are working on such). It would help kill both Google and Apple at the same time!
sure and i just asked GPT "What are the rules of the card game The Pit," and it listed them instantly. DDG i would have to a search, then click the link, scroll down/around and then squint to read their rules. GPT instantly shows them in a clean easier read. As a UX person less (steps & cleanier in this case) is always more.
yes it showed me all the rules even using "The Pit," which i didnt read through all to learn about the bull and the bear. Rather asked GPT a follow up question "what is the bull and the bear?"
"All the rules", including the variation about playing only using hand signals, like at a real trading pit back then?
My underlying point is you didn't learn the correct name, didn't read the full information you got the first time, and seem either incurious or blasé about proving a side-by-side comparison of the two information sources.
The second DDG hit is https://gamerules.com/rules/pit/ which is a summary of only the base game rules, without the bear and bull.
The third is https://www.boardgamecapital.com/pit-rules.htm which has different rules! The one claims bids can include '"Two wheat for one sugar!" or "Three corn for one soybean!"' but link #2 says 'They may not announce the suit that the cards are, but only the number of cards they are trying to get rid of.' matching the Hasbro rules that bids are only based on number, like '“Trade One! One! One!“'.
That third link is highly suspect as it mentions sugar and soybean as possible commodities while listing only 'Hay, Corn, Rye, Barley, Oats, Wheat and Flax'.
Probably your concern is what is the most accurate and correct info. As well Im blase on full details but that's human nature you ever play the telephone game ;-)
If you go and use GPT for this query you will see what rules it lists instantly and as a UX professional less steps/clicks/etc is more and usually wins the game. The rules it provided in a few seconds allowed me to quickly tell them and us to start a new game that we were able to finish to completion. Our first we were not trading 2 or 3 or 4 of the same commodity and had to stop.
I'm more highlighting that there isn't a single set of rules for Pit. The instructions have three different ways of playing.
You asked for "the rules" so GPT gave you some rules, fitting your preconceptions.
You asked about 'the Pit' and presumably didn't get from the answer that it's simply "Pit", suggesting again that it's fitting to your preconceptions.
I don't use GPT for several reasons, one being that every time I've seen GPT output on any non-trivial topic where I am competent enough to judge it, it's done a poor job, and the more so when you don't know enough to pose the question correctly.
For another example, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39483825 I noted how ChatGPT's response used 'Sydney', matching the question posed, while the character's name is actually spelled 'Sidney'.
I don't like systems which re-enforce false preconceptions, no matter how nice the UX.
That’s because you’re comparing a search engine with an assistant… again go gemini.google.com that’s where you have your battle, the incredible thing is that responses are grounding with the entire google ecosystem (search, maps, workspace and even YouTube), that’s something you can’t easily get with ChatGPT…
Thanks yet no fan of Google (sorta loathe them after my experience being invited/meeting an R&D team of theirs.. Silicon Valley greedy rude pigs) and would be happy to see GPT release an AI Phone with Microsoft. GPT has brand awareness and a phone marketed as an AI Phone that has a new phone AI UX paradigm I think would do a lot of harm to both Apple and Google's smart phone dominance.
I think, they are trying to push back against generated pages. I faced this exact problem myself. We recently published an interactive source code navigation tool [0] where you can find examples for commonly used functions from some embedded SDKs. Google indexed it immediately and almost immediately it got a spike of views.
Then, an interesting thing happened. Most pages simply disappeared from the results. Search console shows them as indexed, no problems, no manual actions, but if you google up those functions, there results are not there.
It took some statistical analysis to figure out that they appear to be capping the number of pages. Out of all the pages Google crawled, it picked some percentage of the "most important" ones and it's showing those. The importance, by the looks of it, was computed from the number of incoming links, prioritizing pages for common stuff like int32_t that nobody googles.
It's not ideal, but it kinda makes sense. It's 2024. You can use AI to generate plausible content for any search query you can think of. And unless they put some kind of limits, we'll get overrun with completely useless LLM-churned stuff.
You have confirmed my fears: I'm publishing a text heavy webpage with separate articles per page as well as a large single page. Google will not like that.
I think the big problem is simply that the results are bad. They’re full of spammy links to weird websites with verbose but useless content or just links going to the obvious sources that you could visit yourself like Wikipedia or stack exchange. All the sponsored content and allegations of politically manipulated results don’t help either. Using a chatbot seems more effective most of the time.
But Google has one resource that others do not, which genuinely contains a lot of good content. And that is YouTube. If they could simply make the content of videos easier to search, they would be able to offer a unique set of useful answers. At least for now before AI generated garbage takes over YouTube.
A search engine having bad result is not a simple problem though.
Especially at the position of Google, it's neither a coincidence nor something taking them by surprise. They've been in an arms race with spammers and SEO gurus since the beginning, and had all resources on earth to deal with it. The results being bad as they reached a monopoly position is of their own making, or more precisely a situation they saw as the best tradeoff.
That's where I don't see Google turning the ship around: people who were there for decades to make searches relevant have probably already left a long time ago, or they accepted the new direction themselves. And new people with expertise and enough energy to rock the boat are also in a position to do more impactful work in other companies where they won't have to fight an establishment.
As a example of how hard it is to change direction, we haven't seen Microsoft suddenly build customer friendly OSes, nor Meta having good taste, nor Apple come up with open ecosystems.
It’s not that hard a problem if you have the resources of a Google.
They just have to do what they’ve always been unwilling to do. Let actual humans help curate it.
It’s obvious when a site is a content farm. It’s obvious when a site has real reviews vs. just pretend reviews and affiliate links. It’s obvious when a site is actual Stack Overflow and when a site is a clone thereof.
The rule should be that only good faith web sites are allowed. Web sites with dark patterns are not allowed. Anyone who is doing any SEO shenanigans gets their entire domain de-indexed permanently. If Google does this, and only this, it will return wonderful useful search results.
I'm kinda looking at it from the other end of the causation: with all their resource, talent, everyone shouting at them on their garbage results to the point specifying individual sites like reddit in the query has become common knowledge...all of this says that changing course is hard.
We might be completely mistaken on the reasons why it's hard, but there's no doubt they can't do it easily.
On human curation, this brings other problems that Google is also very bad at solving. Google would need to manage their moderators at scale. Even Meta couldn't do it in a sustainable way, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk model is also deeply problematic. Amazon itself puts a ton of effort into customer service and yet doesn't keep up with the scams.
Curation and moderation at Google scale is indeed a crazy hard problem.
Yes, please make youtube videos easier to search through. And then turn the relevant bits into text with maybe a couple of still images. You know, web pages.
> Without the traffic that Google sends across the web, the incentive and resources to continue producing websites attractive to Google’s search algorithm will decline.
In the early days, I followed some basic guides about how to make web pages more attractive to Google search. But after a while, gave it up. Now I work on making pages solely useful to the users, and pay no attention to engagement metrics or any of that nonsense.
I think more people are starting to realize that the search engine content is curated, so they are starting to look at additional search engines and comparing results. Though Google casts such a large net that its hard to see a world where they become a minority player.
Google Search, like Yahoo Search before it, is on its way out of common use, and nothing will stop this tide. I give it ten years, so by 2035, until it becomes a distant memory.
I mean, it didn't have to be this way. But they decided to go with the enshittification route so why would younger people use it if it ain't that good anymore?
Technologies that stay useful keep getting used, generation after generation. We still use spoons for soup. We've had refrigerators in houses since they became available. There are no "Millennials aren't buying refrigerators and don't like spoons" articles in the new york times. Its because these still work and work well for their purpose.
If they just made google work well for search and kept it working well, there would be no shift in use.
Social media influencers have replaced Google search for the youngs. If there's something you want to know, an influencer will tell you. Not saying this is good or bad, but it's what I've noticed.
Today 80% of that is garbage, it’s like trusting 100% on ChatGPT and its hallucinations, we’re still in an age where we as humans needs to curate the information, or at least has an algorithm that is grounded with truth only coming from books and years of research… we’ll get there eventually but today we’re not yet, social media has other big problems besides crapsourcing, they create knuckleheads with superficial feelings and existencial problems… And still is our way to communicate today.
seems just to be some nonsense the writer made up. If you look at stats the most frequent users are 16-25 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1000019/individuals-who-...
And comparing Google/Bing/Yahoo, old folk Bing while youngsters Google https://www.internetmarketingteam.co.uk/who-uses-bing-how-ag...
I can see how revenues are moving to Amazon. Google is terrible for product search, like what is the best value TV say, compared to Amazon.