Can ChatGPT replace Google and other search engines?

[Michael Martinez]

"The original quote is attributed to the late Bill Gates ..."

Someone should alert the media.

[Sherlock]

No, it won't end Google, this is something much more important than that.

Journalists, coders and writers will soon have to learn how to instruct ChatGPT properly, that's their new job. Like a drone pilot. Writing things yourself is dead.

This thing can write Seinfeld episodes and produce working Wordpress plugins. Mind blown.

Yes. Mind blown.

But will people read that wordpress and watch those movies?

I guess yes, but for a reason I will try to stay away as much as possible. Even now I have a weird feeling that humanity in humans is being lost. In very depressive novels of P.K. Dick the humanity at least survives in the machines. But this reality is worse than that.

People will talk to chatbots even knowing that they are not passing Turing tests. So people will move down the bar. But it will affect them in the backfeed, because people do not exist, they do not have a core... we are just defined by the things that surround us.

So I am retreating from this world. I skip articles where AI is making pictures, even when they look much better than the old recycled photobank pictures. Because I am afraid that if I am used to this AI without soul, I will become the same.

I am totally aware that I am a Luddist. That person that was warning in 19th century that people can not sustain velocity higher than 10km/h or someone who was warning that photography is stealing a soul (I actually still think that as a son of photographer).

I think social networks are destroying people from inside and this will be much worse. I do not think it is a catastrophe and even less that this is a conspiracy. I simply think that this is a self-regulating mechanism how to get rid of most people who will become mad and hen kill themselves or decide to not have children or something like that.

Frankly: all our websites are a total garbage. It serves for nothing else than for transfer of wealth from the stupid and weak people who are sick gamblers to casino owners and us. We are usually the same idiots like those gamblers but at least there is a chance...

But AI will change everything because now the wealth is being transferred to AI owners (I count Google as AI as well), but soon it will be transferred to AI itself. So lazy people will let transfer their sources to something like a parasite that can mask itself as human but (probably!) never can be a human like in P.K. Dick novels.

Ofc this write up is too shallow. Because what is the humanity after all. For me it is raising the bar constantly. The most efficient evolution. Red queen race. Maybe the AI can have subjectivity after all.

But for now it hurts to read AI jokes. They are so stupid, so un-funny, that they are funny. It is like jokes of superintelligent autist (who are for me the people whose poor souls were lost).

I am not trying to persuade anyone that I am right. As I am half-glad for people who gamble or who use social networks, I am half-glad that people will use this.

I will try to teach my kids that they have to take advantage of it, but to stay away off it (as much as possible).

[DaftDog]

ChatGPT is just a very clever tool that has been trained on content already created by other people. Artificial intelligence is nothing more than what it says on the label, artificial. I don't believe AI will be taking over the world any time soon. Scientists are only just beginning to unravel the mysteries of consciousness, so I don't believe “Skynet” will be a possibility in the near future.

[Sherlock]

Scientists are only just beginning to unravel the mysteries of consciousness

I do not think there was a progress of understanding human mind by scientists. Scientists are equally stupid as AI. The REAL science is not revealing reality, it is just using the Popper's principles to reveal the un-truth.

Psychiatry did not make a step forward towards understanding anything. Neurology can cure more diseases (repair brain), but without understanding how brain works. All the ideas what the consciousness is are from pseudoscience (Terrence McKenna for example). I really like those ideas, but it is not a science, because those ideas are not just not-verified, but they are not even falsicable.

Skynet is not the problem. Problem is something Matrix-like. Some stupid AI that is draining the soul and everything human for its own purpose that it does not even understand.

I really love the definition of art. I have no idea who wrote it, maybe Kundera, maybe Tom Robbins. That art is showing the reality from some new angle that is the point of view of the artist, which is in a way unique and it therefore reveals something that other people did not see so far. (not an exact quote)

This is of course not a definition that many people agree with.

But if this was an art, then it was destroyed by kitsch invasion in the beginning. Because kitsch is something "nice", but it does not have the transcendency.

The second step was the postmodern approach to kitsch, which was a subversion that was playing the idiotic intellectual game where a dead shark was put into aquarium, shown as an art and sold for incredible money as an art. Therefore it beard some artistic message, but it was totally perverse. Look this is a kitsch, but stupid consumerists are buying it as an art (as any kitsch), but we are showing the stupidity of people by selling this piece of crap, so this kitsch is an art, because it is revealing in a new way how we all are stupid.

And this is the postmodern art for me in a box and it was very annoying, because all of the postmodern art is bearing this stupid message and it was just a boredom.

But there is more. And that is AI. Which will be producing just pure kitsch and it will produce it over and over again. It is even now able to draw the paintings technically equal or better, but much faster than the artist. But the style, the surface, is not what the art is.

There is always some encrypted message in art. Something that can come only from the consciousness. The AI - as it knows nothing - can never bring such message.

But what AI can do is to affect the brains of people and make us more retarded. The flood of pictures will make a brain insensitive to the real art, just like porn is making people insensitive to sexual stimulus. If we will see 1000 of AI generated pictures per day, the consciousness but also subconsciousness will simply give up to look for deeper message in any art.

All that will remain will be looking at the surface. At colors, composition etc., which will be perfect but hollow. The kitsch will win and rule us.

This trend is already happening in cinematography. I am not watching movies, because during last years it is just crap. But I saw the new Bladerunner. It is a pure bullshit. Just a kitsch. Visual masturbation. Still even people that I thought who are intelligent enough to understand what the art really is liked it, because it was visually perfect. (Funny note: the movie was so bad that my mind collapsed my stomach and colon and I ended up in hospital right after watching that stupid movie).

The problem of AI is that it will make people less human, because they will be even more shallow.

But Alea iacta est.

[DaftDog]

Psychiatry did not make a step forward towards understanding anything. Neurology can cure more diseases (repair brain), but without understanding how brain works. All the ideas what the consciousness is are from pseudoscience (Terrence McKenna for example). I really like those ideas, but it is not a science, because those ideas are not just not-verified, but they are not even falsicable.

You may enjoy this, that is, if you watch YouTube videos:

[jowel]

I think the change will be fundamental, it shows the new way the Internet will go

[statsdrone]

Can think of Chat GPT more like your Alexa, Siri and hey Google, ask a question and get a good answer. It is basically now a search engine where the threat is it could replace SERPs in a totally different way.

AI content might make us all look better and smarter but maybe humans will still always want to connect with other humans and value this. This is why it seems that sites that have more personalities behind them are doing better whereas a site like askgamblers seems a little too corporate. This could be why video is the future and that might be a little tough to fake.

[Randy Ray]

I thought it was cool that it could write a poem, but all the poems it wrote for me were lousy.

I'm a tabletop RPG nerd, so I had it suggest some plot seeds for gaming sessions, and I liked those. I doubt they were especially original, though. Still, fun stuff for some purposes.

You can have it write a poem, do math calculations or suggest a 14 days travel route for your next holiday trip to Italy.

[mediamanoz]

The world's most hyped technology at present and over time perhythe substance may equal the hype/style. We've got to fill up the forums and newspapers with something new and shiny.

[dannyx]

Of course another company can replace google. In theory, this seems unlikely. However, anything is possible. Even that the earth will cease to exist tomorrow.
I would be surprised if something replaced google but there is always those few percent....
If a guy from the UK in 1800 heard that a large corporation "British East India Company" would cease to exist, he would probably laugh hard.

[Karri]

The problem is that it doesn't offer any new content. It's simply a tool to browse existing content. One of the reasons Google is big is that it's profitable for people to create content to be searched on it. Why would I create a website if the AI simply quotes&scrapes it? Unless I get the customer to browse my site it's pointless for me to create the content. And without the content the AI is nothing.

So obviously it will just become a more efficient Google. Or, rather Bing might be able to surpass Google finally since Microsoft owns GPT...

[Sherlock]

So obviously it will just become a more efficient Google. Or, rather Bing might be able to surpass Google finally since Microsoft owns GPT...

If it is just a skin as you mentioned, it is not clear that just the different interface will cause that Google will fade. Google still has the raw data as you say. If some AI can now scrape Google (or something else) it is not set in stone that it can do it in future. Every action causes reaction.

Google can and will do his own AI if it will be that sufficient. Unlike with social networks, where is the network effect, Google can be more successful than with Orkut (or Google + or what was the name) when it wanted to defend itself against FB.

Last remark: it is unknown whether AI is more efficient than text search for example. The impact on human brain that is interacting on AI is unknown. I would not be surprised if the digital retardation reaches yet another level. So if the billions of stupid consumers are really a step forward.

At some point in future, the reality will go to the fundamentals. The stupid people will be poor. This means much poorer than now. So they will bring much less wealth to the owners of tools that they are using.

[iso2009]

GPT-3 code creation is decent, most of the times is faulty or unusable and needs human touch. Google->StackOverflow (or any other related site) is a much better and faster way.


The text I generated with it for some very specific topics is just copied from web.archive.org expired sites Sometimes it even sends back text containing the domain, like "Read more about it on our site, xxxx.com". For this I used their API, in ChatGPT or in the Playground results are a bit better.

However, it is useful to generate text for articles. You can then paraphrase it in order to get rid of the GPT model.

Google can detect GPT3 text "as is", and their guidelines for "quality" (if you think Google really understands it) are reiterated here: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-...ate-34732.html

I'm not a big believer in the all-mighty AI, but I think it can make our lives a lot easier (for some, it would be the opposite).

[JimKnight88]

I think it's more likely that major search/tech companies buy or develop this technology to supplement their current products, rather than it taking over. Google have such a significant market share that they'd likely invest in such tech to safeguard their position if they feel it's a genuine threat to people's search habits.

[wonderpunter]

I think it will take a big chunk from search however it still constant fresh information itself which will only come from content creators or you would have answers based off old data and other AI, could be potentially crazy on a search point of view.. perhaps thats why the results look messy as it is?

[TheJoker]

Instead of replacing them, it could be integrated to create a more efficient and interactive search engine that allows you to have an improved access to the content you are looking for plus a wide array of additional features compared to what we have today.

[greejack17]

I agree that chatGPT is not going to take over Google in the next few months - mostly because the "person on the street" doesn't know about it - yet. We know about it because we work in the online space, but I've asked friends and family who don't and no one's heard of it - again...yet.
I read this morning that Google is now scrambling to perfect and implement a chat-bot so they are definitely not going down without a fight.

As a tool beyond "search" I'm finding it very helpful for short content creation - headers, meta data, etc. I find it less good for a full on article of 1000 words.

Also, must remember it's not up-to-date with its info.
And.....I read they are going to start charging membership - that will keep them well below Google.

[Lasmanis24]

I do not think. At least not in the near future (~20 years). People's habits are hard to change. Everyone uses google, so far nothing close to google has been created

[Strider1973]

I do not think. At least not in the near future (~20 years). People's habits are hard to change. Everyone uses google, so far nothing close to google has been created

20 years seems a very long timeframe.

25 years ago Google was barely known. 20 years ago most people had monochrome display cell phones, if they even had one. 15 years ago Bitcon was not yet invented.

So I rather think that in 3-7 years the way how we search / the way how search engines reply to our queries will have radically changed.

[chaumi]

Yes, it's very hard to second-guess the speed with which things like this change now.

Certainly, these AI developments seem to have the potential to be significantly disruptive in many areas...and there's a good chance we haven't yet seen 20% of what can really be done.