they are great for doing a lot of web research into complex subjects, create an inventory of the most provelant discussions and historical precedents and form all that into an easy to read report. Since the llm is not the source of knowledge but the search engine, your comment is absolutely worthless as a coherent reply to my post
No, LLMs are not a search engine, that’s not how they work.
They process and regurgitate text, and even in such “simple” uses there is risk of hallucination.
Your conversation with a LLM is absolutely worthless as a coherent reply to anything.
LLM’s are search engines by their nature, but on top of that they have search engines they reference, they have powerful grepping and search tools to iterate through those results come up with the prevailing theories and outliers and present that as an organized report to you, unless you can find something that is factually incorrect about my statement you are arguing against what you are seeing with your eyes which i dont quite get
LLM’s are search engines by their nature, but on top of that they have search engines they reference, they have powerful grepping and search tools to iterate through those results come up with the prevailing theories and outliers and present that as an organized report to you[…]
This is completely wrong, you need to read about how LLMs actually work.
While they can give the appearance of searching, they are not at all search engines.
What an LLM does when it processes a text is adjust some internal weights, nothing more.
Whenever you ask it to search or summarize it generates text according to your query and its weights, not to the original text, and there is absolutely no guarantee that it will correctly do what you asked.
They are a really interesting technology, but currently have zero usefulness as a search engine or summarizer, because the often omit actual results and/or hallucinate incorrect results.
Seriously, read about it, if you are trusting LLM output as factual, you are absolutely being misled.
they are great for doing a lot of web research into complex subjects, create an inventory of the most provelant discussions and historical precedents and form all that into an easy to read report. Since the llm is not the source of knowledge but the search engine, your comment is absolutely worthless as a coherent reply to my post
No, LLMs are not a search engine, that’s not how they work. They process and regurgitate text, and even in such “simple” uses there is risk of hallucination.
Your conversation with a LLM is absolutely worthless as a coherent reply to anything.
LLM’s are search engines by their nature, but on top of that they have search engines they reference, they have powerful grepping and search tools to iterate through those results come up with the prevailing theories and outliers and present that as an organized report to you, unless you can find something that is factually incorrect about my statement you are arguing against what you are seeing with your eyes which i dont quite get
This is completely wrong, you need to read about how LLMs actually work.
While they can give the appearance of searching, they are not at all search engines.
What an LLM does when it processes a text is adjust some internal weights, nothing more.
Whenever you ask it to search or summarize it generates text according to your query and its weights, not to the original text, and there is absolutely no guarantee that it will correctly do what you asked.
They are a really interesting technology, but currently have zero usefulness as a search engine or summarizer, because the often omit actual results and/or hallucinate incorrect results.
Seriously, read about it, if you are trusting LLM output as factual, you are absolutely being misled.