The integration offers conversational, cited answers instead of traditional links and follows positive feedback from earlier tests in select markets. Perplexity will expand to mobile soon.
It’s not a search engine, it’s a random text generator disguised as an engine. It’s worse than Google, if you can believe it. We don’t need more shit that is worse than Google
I will say in its benefit that if there is to be AI-summaries as answers to search queries, this has the right ideas: List your sources atop, even have a separate sources tab, include direct quotes where possible (though this feature is weird, I don’t always get it, maybe topic-specific).
I still don’t like it (just link me to the bloody source instead) but I know a ton of people who explicitly want those AI-summaries as their answers, and this at least exposes what was used to create the answer.
My main problem with that, is that it actually doesn’t use the sources it lists. It does it sometimes, and other times the links have nothing to do with the generated text, and some of them might be also non existent, but because it’s not always wrong, it makes people complicit, nobody actually checks the sources, but believe it more because the links are there.
Firefox adding another search engine choice isn’t really headline news to me but cool I guess, especially if it’s another option that’s not Google?
I’ll continue using something else, though.
You can also manually add or remove search engines (at least in current Mozilla releases)
It’s not a search engine, it’s a random text generator disguised as an engine. It’s worse than Google, if you can believe it. We don’t need more shit that is worse than Google
Yeah it’s pretty lame.
I will say in its benefit that if there is to be AI-summaries as answers to search queries, this has the right ideas: List your sources atop, even have a separate sources tab, include direct quotes where possible (though this feature is weird, I don’t always get it, maybe topic-specific).
I still don’t like it (just link me to the bloody source instead) but I know a ton of people who explicitly want those AI-summaries as their answers, and this at least exposes what was used to create the answer.
Rubbish, but on a conceptual level doing better.
My main problem with that, is that it actually doesn’t use the sources it lists. It does it sometimes, and other times the links have nothing to do with the generated text, and some of them might be also non existent, but because it’s not always wrong, it makes people complicit, nobody actually checks the sources, but believe it more because the links are there.