I don't think better search is exactly what we want. It would also be great to have less quantity and more quality. I think optimizing only search to make it better (including AI) only furthers the quantity aspect of content, not quality. Optimizing search or trying to make it better is the wrong goal IMO.
Arguably, the opposite is true. Ars Technica and others have written about this extensively [0].
Having summarized results appear immediately with links to the sources is preferable to opening multiple tabs and sifting through low-quality content and clickbait.
Many real-world problems aren't as simple as "type some keywords" and get relevant results. AI excels as a "rubber duck", i.e., a tool to explore possible solutions, troubleshoot issues, discover new approaches, etc.
Yes, LLMs are useful for junior developers. But for experienced developers, they're more valuable.
It's a tool, just like search engines.
Airplanes are also a tool. Would you limit your travel to destinations within walking distance? Or avoid checking the weather because forecasts use Bayesian probability (and some mix of machine learning)? Or avoid power tools because they deny the freedom of doing things the hard way?
One can imagine that when early humans began wearing clothing to keep warm, there were naysayers who preferred to stay cold.
The most creative people I know are using AI to further their creativity. Example: storytelling, world building, voice models, game development, artwork, assistants that mimic their personality, helping loved ones enjoy a better quality of life as they age, smart home automations to help their grandmother, text-to-speech for the visually impaired or those who have trouble reading, custom voice commands, and so on.
Should I tell my mom to turn off Siri and avoid highlighting text and tapping "Speak" because it uses AI under the hood? I think not.
They embrace it, just like creative people have always done.
Socrates had a skeptical view of written language, preferring oral communication and philosophical inquiry. This perspective is primarily presented through the writings of his student, Plato, particularly in the dialogue Phaedrus.
I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above. Of course, I would never have learned it in the first place had somebody not written it down.
> Socrates had a skeptical view of written language, preferring oral communication and philosophical inquiry. This perspective is primarily presented through the writings of his student, Plato, particularly in the dialogue Phaedrus.
He did not. You should read the dialogue.
> I confirmed that from my own memory via a Google AI summary, quoted verbatim above.
This is the biggest problem with LLMs in my view. They are great at confirmation bias.
In Phaedrus 257c–279c Plato portrays Socrates discussing rhetoric and the merits of writing speeches not writing in general.
"Socrates:
Then that is clear to all, that writing speeches is not in itself a disgrace.
Phaedrus:
How can it be?
Socrates:
But the disgrace, I fancy, consists in speaking or writing not well, but disgracefully and badly.
Phaedrus:
Evidently."
I mean, writing had existed for 3 millennia by the point this dialogue was written.
