Asklemmy

43915 readers

842 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What are the highest quality search engines? (lemmy.world)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It is becoming near impossible to find relevant information from search engines. Duckduckgo, SearXNG, Bing, Google, and so many more mainstream engines have a significantly high noise to signal ratio, and it is getting worse.

Here are a collection of the best search engines I know, please add more to the list.

Forum Search Engine: https://crowdview.ai/
Non-commercial Search: https://search.marginalia.nu/
Libre Meta Search Engine: https://librey.devol.it/
Golden Age Search Engine: https://www.wiby.org/
Yandex: https://yandex.com/

If no more high quality search engines exist, would it be possible to host your own?

EDIT: Some new discoveries. The addon uBlacklist and filters can block super SEO sites from appearing in search.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I switched to ChatGPT and find it superior to the mess Google and others have made of their search engines. I could never go back to a regular search after using AI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

You know half the shit chatgpt says isn't true, right?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I have not found that to be the case at all. While not perfect, it is miles above Google Search and has not more errors than the misinformation any search will yield. It is a significant business advantage as well and those who are not embracing are missing out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think businesses should be at a disadvantage of all things. Business caused millions of people to starve to death in Bengal.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

How so? What size of business? I am a business of just 1 person.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've found bing ai is quite good if you ask for the source after anything it spits out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

These models can invent a source. Their only incentive is to have a convincing conversation with you. They are unconcerned with the truth.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What I mean is I use it to get the links to those sources. Like when you use Wikipedia as a jumping off point. I don't think we're at the point yet where we have the problem Wikipedia sometimes has that the sources used sometimes themselves just cite Wikipedia.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The links to Wikipedia are actual citations to real sources. LLMs basically just generate something that looks like the link to a credible source which might support what it's said. It doesn't care if its "source" actually supports what it says.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

The links to Wikipedia are actual citations to real sources

I read an interesting article a few years ago about the Wikipedia source problem. It did a dive into how sources that seem legitimate on Wikipedia can and up citing sources that are less so. They were able to trace back the citations to Wikipedia itself. So no, they're not always real sources.

LLMs basically just generate something that looks like the link to a credible source which might support what it's said. It doesn't care if its "source" actually supports what it says.

Which is why you read the page it has linked for you as a source. Unless you're trying to say it full on generates a page for you.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago

It's okay for things that are pretty low-stakes. If you ask for cooking or cleaning advice and it hallucinates you're still at square zero regardless.