I’m very much with you but how would you look this up? Especially without going down a rabbithole about the kangaroo digestive system and if you don’t know anyone who fights kangaroos.
Edit: I am, in fact, not advocating for AI but genuinely asking.
Now, and this is apparently the hard part. Look at the results. NO don’t look at the AI bit on top, KEEP SCROLLING, there is more stuff down there. Look until you see a thing that appears to be a not bullshit source.
Click on that result.
Read it.
Congratulations. You learned something that is probably true.
Now, glancing over DuckDuckGo results tells me that kangaroos do fart and there’s no mention of that being unusual in any way. So now what do I do? I come back here and ask the person who claimed they don’t fart to please elaborate and why they claim that. What was gained in this exercise?
Why does you learning something require you to go and do all of that? You learned that OP is incorrect and you shared that with everyone here. Why are you adding steps? Is this genuinely a new concept for you?
Ecosia can use either Google or Bing under the hood, and is working on its own search index along with Quant.
But, honestly, “it uses X under the hood” is such a reductive take. If you never give alternative search engines a try, they’ll never gain the userbase to actually build their own foundation.
Using Google (or Bing) itself means you’re contributing to the problem.
I guess I’d rather pay google too. But I’d even rather support a third party search engine, even if that means a small portion of whatever revenue I generate goes to either microsoft or google in the short to medium term.
For what it’s worth, it appears DDG is also working on their own index:
We also maintain our own crawler (DuckDuckBot) and many indexes to support our results. Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search results too, which we largely source from Bing.
KEEP SCROLLING, there is more stuff down there. Look until you see a thing that appears to be a not bullshit source.
Yeah, about that, sometimes there will be no not bullshit source or no relevant result at all even if bullshit. Depends on how complicated the question is, but search engines look to perform worse lately, too
Why wouldn’t you want to go down that rabbithole? Would keep me busy for few hours al least. Much more better way to kill time instead of just doomscrolling.
I’m very much with you but how would you look this up? Especially without going down a rabbithole about the kangaroo digestive system and if you don’t know anyone who fights kangaroos.
Edit: I am, in fact, not advocating for AI but genuinely asking.
Google: “Do kangaroos fart?”
Now, and this is apparently the hard part. Look at the results. NO don’t look at the AI bit on top, KEEP SCROLLING, there is more stuff down there. Look until you see a thing that appears to be a not bullshit source.
Click on that result.
Read it.
Congratulations. You learned something that is probably true.
I’d like to politely decline.
Now, glancing over DuckDuckGo results tells me that kangaroos do fart and there’s no mention of that being unusual in any way. So now what do I do? I come back here and ask the person who claimed they don’t fart to please elaborate and why they claim that. What was gained in this exercise?
Okay wise guy, what if an LLM told you the same thing? what would be gained then?
What if the comment your pointing at is wrong?
What if you didn’t need to have your thinking done for you?
The very first thing I said was that I agree with not asking an AI, ever, for anything.
Why does you learning something require you to go and do all of that? You learned that OP is incorrect and you shared that with everyone here. Why are you adding steps? Is this genuinely a new concept for you?
Huh? There may be a reason why they said that and I might like to know?
You’re the one that was complaining that not just using AI was too much work, right?
Definitely not.
DDG just uses Bing under the hood. Why do you prefer Microsoft over Google?
DDG lets you turn off the AI overview. That alone makes it miles better
Ecosia can use either Google or Bing under the hood, and is working on its own search index along with Quant.
But, honestly, “it uses X under the hood” is such a reductive take. If you never give alternative search engines a try, they’ll never gain the userbase to actually build their own foundation.
Using Google (or Bing) itself means you’re contributing to the problem.
You’re still contributing to the problem if whatever you use is literally paying Microsoft for every search you make.
You’d rather pay google?
I guess I’d rather pay google too. But I’d even rather support a third party search engine, even if that means a small portion of whatever revenue I generate goes to either microsoft or google in the short to medium term.
For what it’s worth, it appears DDG is also working on their own index:
https://duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/sources
Because neither DDG nor Microsoft is tracking me when I use DDG.
About that …
https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/24/ddg-microsoft-tracking-blocking-limit/
That’s DDG’s browser, though, not the search engine (which is what we were talking about).
And clearly they can’t be trusted. How you gonna confirm that they don’t make similar carveouts with their website?
Do you have a better search engine?
Because it’s not Google.
It’s also Microsoft.
True.
Most people don’t have this skill. And a lot of those web pages are going to be written by AI, too.
Search results being 80% ai generated is killing me internally smh 😣
https://tenbluelinks.org/
Yeah, about that, sometimes there will be no not bullshit source or no relevant result at all even if bullshit. Depends on how complicated the question is, but search engines look to perform worse lately, too
This question is not complicated.
So Google good, Ai bad?
Is this an ad?
Are you stupid?
Why wouldn’t you want to go down that rabbithole? Would keep me busy for few hours al least. Much more better way to kill time instead of just doomscrolling.
Because I already go down rabbitholes too much (TT_TT)