LONDON (AP) — It’s not just you. Many people think that Google searches are getting worse and worse. And the rise of generative AI chatbots is giving people new and different ways to find information.
Although Google has been the one-stop shop for decades—after all, we commonly call searches “Googling”—its long-standing dominance has attracted a flood of sponsored or spammy links and unwanted content, fueled by “search engine optimization” techniques. That pushes down truly useful results.
A recent study by German researchers shows that the quality of results from Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo is indeed decreasing. Google says the results are of significantly better quality than those of its competitors, citing third-party measurements.
Now chatbots powered by generative artificial intelligence, including from Google itself, are poised to shake up the way search works. But they have their own problems: Because the technology is so new, there are concerns about the accuracy and reliability of AI chatbots.
If you want to try the AI way, here’s a how-to:
WHERE DO I FIND AI SEARCH TOOLS?
Google users don’t have to look far. The company launched its own AI chatbot assistant last year, known as Bard, but recently retired that name and replaced it with a similar service, Gemini.
Bard users are now redirected to the Gemini site, which can be accessed directly via desktop or mobile browsers.
The Gemini app also launched in the US this month and is rolling out globally in Japanese, Korean and English – except in Britain, Switzerland and Europe – according to an update post, which notes that “more countries and languages will be available soon.” to appear”.
Google also tested a new search offering called “Search Genative Experience,” which replaces links with an AI-generated snapshot of important information. But it’s limited to US users who sign up through the experimental Labs site.
Microsoft’s Bing search engine has been offering generative AI search powered by OpenAI’s ChatGPT technology for about a year, first under the name Bing Chat, now rebranded as Copilot.
On the Bing Search homepage, click the Chat or Copilot button below the search window. You will then be presented with a conversational interface where you type your question. There is also a Copilot app.
A slew of AI search sites for startups have sprung up, but they’re not that easy to find. A standard Google search isn’t all that helpful, but searches on Copilot and Bard turned up a number of names, including Perplexity, HuggingChat, You.com, Komo, Andi, Phind, Exa, and AskAI.
DO I HAVE TO REGISTER OR PAY FOR THEM?
Most of these services have free versions. They typically limit the number of searches you can make, but offer premium tiers that offer smarter AI and more features.
For example, Gemini users can pay $20 for the Advanced version, which includes access to the “most capable” model, Ultra 1.0.
Gemini users must be signed in to their Google accounts and be at least 13 years old (18 in Europe or Canada). Copilot users do not need to sign into a Microsoft account and can access the service via Bing Search or Copilot home pages.
Startup sites are largely free to use and do not require an account. Many also have premium tiers.
HOW DO I DO AN AI SEARCH?
Instead of typing in a series of keywords, AI questions should have a conversational conversation, for example: “Is Taylor Swift the most successful female musician?” or “What are some good places to travel in Europe this summer?”
Perplexity recommends the use of ‘everyday, natural language’. Phind says it’s best to ask “complete and detailed questions” that start with, for example, “what is” or “how to do it.”
If you’re not satisfied with the answer, some sites allow you to ask follow-up questions to find out the information you need. Some provide suggestions or related questions.
Microsoft’s Copilot lets you choose from three different chat styles: creative, balanced, or precise.
HOW ARE THE RESULTS?
Unlike Google search results that display a list of links, including sponsored links, AI chatbots spit out a readable summary of the information, sometimes with a few key links as footnotes. The answers will vary – sometimes greatly – depending on the site.
They can stand out if you are looking for an unclear fact, such as a detail about the policy of the European Union.
Phind.com’s answers were among the most readable and were consistently presented in narrative form. But the site has mysteriously gone offline at times.
Testing a simple question: what is the average temperature in London for the second half of February? – produced similar results in most locations: 7-9 degrees Celsius (45-48 Fahrenheit).
Andi strangely gave the current weather conditions for New York, although it later used the correct city on another attempt.
Another search – the names and tenures of the CEOs of British luxury car maker Aston Martin – is the kind of information that is available online but requires some work to piece together.
Most sites came up with names from the last decade or two. AskAI provided a list from 1947, along with the top three “authoritative sources,” but without links.
WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?
While chatbots may sound authoritative because they produce answers that appear to be written by a confident human, they are not always correct. AI chatbots are known for giving deceptively convincing responses, known as “hallucinations.” HuggingChat warns: ‘Generated content may be inaccurate or false’ and Gemini says it ‘may display inaccurate information, including about people’.
These AI systems scan vast amounts of information gleaned from the internet, known as large language models, and then use algorithms to come up with coherent answers, but not all reveal how they arrived at their answers.
Some AI chatbots reveal the models their algorithms are trained on. Others provide little or no detail. The best advice is to try more than one and compare the results, and always double check the sources.
For example, at one point Komo insisted that Canada’s population was about 1 million in 1991, and he stuck with this incorrect number even after I checked to see if it was certain. It cited a Wikipedia page, which showed the figure came from a table for the country’s indigenous population. When I tried again later, the correct number was found.
___
Is there a technical challenge you need help sorting out? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your questions.