Open AI’s ChatGPT AI-boosted dialog tool has been in the news since its release, to the point where we’re talking about direct competition with Google and predicting the Mountain View company’s next demise. Still, all of this is well within the normal sequence of search engine development. And ChatGPT is still far from competing with the leading engine…
In the last few weeks, Open AI’s ChatGPT tool has been making headlines with its rather impressive question-and-answer system (even in French) and powered by artificial intelligence. The system certainly has its limitations, but it remains effective for a certain number of queries, especially informational ones.
Here are two examples of questions where the ChatGPT response is of fairly good quality:
Questions regarding SEO and Google, reply from ChatGPT. Source: Abundance
But it should be noted that the answers are often filled with inaccuracies, even mistakes. Here are a few examples among many others, with explanations in the legend:
Questions regarding Spirou, which was created by Rob-well and not Franquin. A bellhop is not really a cop. Spip is a squirrel and not a hamster. The other designers didn’t wait for Franquin’s death to take up the character. Etc. Source: Abundance
Questions regarding Iznogoud : here Goscinny is the screenwriter and not the designer (although he was before he was a screenwriter). But for Iznogoud, he is clearly the screenwriter and not the designer. Jean Tabary is French (but born in Stockholm) and not Franco-Belgian. Source: Abundance
Questions regarding Abraracourcix : the name of the wife of the chief of the Gallic village is Bonemine and not Bonnaire. Source: Abundance
Questions about wine Cleves : No mention at the beginning of Heiligenstein, Klevener’s cradle since 1742 and unique town that produces this wine. Heiligenstein is also in Bas-Rhin and not Haut-Rhin. Etc. Source: Abundance
We see from these few examples (which are not intended to be a scientific study of the reliability of ChatGPT, but which could be repeated almost endlessly) that this tool can hardly be used without checking the result on other rejected sources. Reliability is clearly not there (yet)… Ask ChatGPT a question on a subject that you know well and you will immediately realize it. Today it is unthinkable to use ChatGPT as a lambda search engine for its daily information research needs.
Nevertheless, the tool is notable for the form of the answers it returns (structured and long, descriptive sentences, without spelling errors), and in this it is promising what it will provide when the many current errors are fixed. Today, it can be estimated that 90% of the content of the answers given is quite reliable. But when 10% of this answer is wrong, it does not allow to have unwavering confidence in the tool. In this context, it seems impossible to us that it can compete with Google today. On the other hand, it may well show how search engines will look in a few years, in an obvious way.
Red warning by Google
In any case, the release of this product caused a “red code” at Google, and the leaders of the Mountain View company seem to have asked its engineers to speed up development (in progress, of course, for many years). months, especially around LaMDA) of a similar technology. But it is clear that the dimensions of effective operation between ChatGPT and Google are not the same:
- that degree of error returned by ChatGPT today would not be accepted if it was Google that returned them to its official engine (but this may be the case on an experimental tool that will definitely be launched in 2023).
- that the amount of information brewed and indexed by Google (hundreds of billions of web pages) has no common yardstick with ChatGPT.
- Same for the amount of requests processed every second.
Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, and Jeff Dean, Head of AI at Alphabet, talk about: This is an area where we must be courageous and responsible. So we have to find a balance (…) For research, questions of truth are really important; and for other applications, issues of bias, toxicity and safety are also paramount “. Moreover, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, says otherwise and recently admitted the limits of his tool: ” ChatGPT is incredibly limited, but good enough in some areas to give the deceptive impression of being great. It would be a mistake to rely on it for anything of significance at the moment (…) there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of robustness and truth. »
We must therefore definitely go beyond the “Wow” aspect (which is clearly genuine) by ChatGPT and believe that it is above all a vision for what search engines will be in the medium term (in that on the internet the term medium term is relative: we are talking here of only a few years). That is clear the “10 blue links” will disappear soonin their current form anyway. It is also likely 2023 is a decisive year at this level, and that Google will show us things soon, perhaps as soon as the Google I/O event next May.
Then it remains to be seen how SEO will adapt to this new standard, these new standards of evolution. Because customization can be important and not so easy…