A.I. News Microsoft predicts AI will make web browsers and search engines obsolete in years

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Content source

https://www.techspot.com/news/105910-microsoft-predicts-ai-make-web-browsers-search-engines.html

Companies involved in generative AI, like Google and OpenAI, are envisioning a future where users delegate queries and tasks to chatbots or GenAI agents instead of manually clicking through websites and search engines. The head of Microsoft's AI division thinks such applications can replace web browsers, and some predict they will eventually feel like operating systems.

In a lengthy interview with The Verge, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman describes a future where conversational generative AI interfaces might render conventional web browsers obsolete. The technology must overcome numerous obstacles before realizing this vision, but Suleyman expressed confidence in its evolution, though he tempered expectations for artificial general intelligence (AGI).

Suleyman described the current process of using a search engine as cumbersome, favoring the convenience of relaying questions to the Copilot app on his iPhone. He predicts that AI assistants with AI-generated interfaces could replace traditional search engines and browsers within three to five years.

Microsoft predicts AI will make web browsers and search engines obsolete in years

In a lengthy interview with The Verge, Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman describes a future where conversational generative AI interfaces might render conventional web browsers obsolete. The...

www.techspot.com

 

[spiritedawaymadmax]

I thought everyone uses AI instead of search engines these days (or is it just me). I find it somehow more efficient and easier to talk to ChatGPT and find out exactly what I'm looking for instead of reading a few posts and scavaging for bits of information all over the place. For example, I asked AI yesterday something along the lines of "Can Coca-Cola go bad in my fridge if I didn't notice it got spilled." Surprise, it can...

Actually, that’s what got me digging into workspace AI tools. I figured if AI can simplify browsing, it could probably make work easier, too (and I really needed some help there, more than with my fridge). There are a few options right now, and I'm sure there will be even more in the future. So far, GPT Workspace works great for me, and it was free to try, so I figured, why not?

 

[mlnevese]

First they will have to solve the problem of AI hallucinations, when the AI just creates information out of nowhere. People also invent false information but it's often harder to detect it than when an AI does it.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

I thought everyone uses AI instead of search engines these days (or is it just me). I find it somehow more efficient and easier to talk to ChatGPT and find out exactly what I'm looking for instead of reading a few posts and scavaging for bits of information all over the place. For example, I asked AI yesterday something along the lines of "Can Coca-Cola go bad in my fridge if I didn't notice it got spilled." Surprise, it can...

Actually, that’s what got me digging into workspace AI tools. I figured if AI can simplify browsing, it could probably make work easier, too (and I really needed some help there, more than with my fridge). There are a few options right now, and I'm sure there will be even more in the future. So far, GPT Workspace works great for me, and it was free to try, so I figured, why not?

Nope, tried it once, not in any hurry to try again.

 

[oldschool]

I use AI sparingly via my browser's search engine.

First they will have to solve the problem of AI hallucinations, when the AI just creates information out of nowhere.

No way I'm relying on something that is on drugs!

 

[simmerskool]

I use chatGPT almost every day mostly with linux shell questions, it has been 99.99% right, and occasionally ask about something more generalized or non-computer related, and it surprises me with its depth of information / updated current information, on a topic that I know something about. I think AI will be taking a lot of jobs next few years, and economic policy has to change, perhaps guaranteed income for everyone...??

 

[monkeylove]

I read somewhere that the cost per search using AI is many times higher.

 

[brambedkar59]

I only use "AI" when normal search can't find the thing I am looking for, because Google's (and most other as well) search engine now refuses to respect the usage of search operators like "" for finding the exact word I am looking for.

 

[blackice]

One word answers are frowned upon here, but yuck! I learn a lot by researching things. A lot of critical thinking is lost when you let the dumb bot do it for you.

 

[mlnevese]

I read somewhere that the cost per search using AI is many times higher.

I asked Claude and this was the answer.

The cost comparison between AI-powered search and traditional search methods is nuanced and depends on several factors:

Infrastructure Costs:
- Traditional search typically requires less computational power and simpler infrastructure
- AI search needs significant computing resources, especially for large language models and neural networks
- AI systems often require specialized hardware like GPUs or TPUs

Operating Costs:
- Traditional search is generally cheaper to run day-to-day once implemented
- AI search has higher energy consumption and computing costs per query
- Cloud computing costs for AI can be substantial at scale

Development Costs:
- Traditional search algorithms are well-established and cheaper to implement
- AI search requires more expensive expertise and longer development time
- Training AI models is computationally intensive and costly

However, the higher costs of AI search might be justified by:
1. Better search accuracy and relevance
2. Ability to understand natural language and context
3. More sophisticated query understanding
4. Potential for personalization

The cost-effectiveness really depends on your specific use case, scale of operations, and whether the improved search capabilities justify the additional expense.

So AI thinks AI is better

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I thought everyone uses AI instead of search engines these days (or is it just me). I find it somehow more efficient and easier to talk to ChatGPT and find out exactly what I'm looking for instead of reading a few posts and scavaging for bits of information all over the place. For example, I asked AI yesterday something along the lines of "Can Coca-Cola go bad in my fridge if I didn't notice it got spilled." Surprise, it can...

Actually, that’s what got me digging into workspace AI tools. I figured if AI can simplify browsing, it could probably make work easier, too (and I really needed some help there, more than with my fridge). There are a few options right now, and I'm sure there will be even more in the future. So far, GPT Workspace works great for me, and it was free to try, so I figured, why not?

It gives roo much inaccurate results about everything and has hallucinations too
So yes it's a faster way to summarize data from the internet but at a cost of accuracy and personally since some information being wrong can even be dangerous it won't be any time soon a full replacement at least I hope so

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I use chatGPT almost every day mostly with linux shell questions, it has been 99.99% right, and occasionally ask about something more generalized or non-computer related, and it surprises me with its depth of information / updated current information, on a topic that I know something about. I think AI will be taking a lot of jobs next few years, and economic policy has to change, perhaps guaranteed income for everyone...??

It's definitely getting better and is super useful for new Linux users so I'm happy you understand it's benefits but just be cautious about its issues too

It can be wrong about everything and give inefficient solutions , random bad advice it taken from its training data , trying to cheat and please you , generate texts that looks intelligent , correct even if it has zero value

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I read somewhere that the cost per search using AI is many times higher.

It takes a ton more resources
What google search does is cache and index sites unlike ai that takes big ai models and generates text each time from the huge model wich takes a ton of operations
It's not 10x more and not 100x more demanding rather much much more

 

[simmerskool]

I asked Claude and this was the answer.
So AI thinks AI is better

So where exactly did Claude AI say that, or that was your interpretation

 

[mlnevese]

So where exactly did Claude AI say that, or that was your interpretation

However, the higher costs of AI search might be justified by:
1. Better search accuracy and relevance
2. Ability to understand natural language and context
3. More sophisticated query understanding
4. Potential for personalization

Right here it recognizes the higher cost but explains why it's better

 

[simmerskool]

However, the higher costs of AI search might be justified by:
1. Better search accuracy and relevance
2. Ability to understand natural language and context
3. More sophisticated query understanding
4. Potential for personalization

Right here it recognizes the higher cost but explains why it's better

ok. 1 thru 4 ring true to me, it but says "might be justified"... meaning (to me) in some contexts it might not. Unlike some above, I have been surprised how accurate and complete its answers are in every topic I search. Even its computer related answers are better than they were 3 or 4 months ago, ie, seems to be constantly improving.

 

[monkeylove]

I think the cost is up to 30 times more:

Generative AI uses 30 times more energy than search engines: research

Sasha Luccioni, a prominent researcher recognised by Time magazine as one of the top 100 influential figures in AI, has recently raised concerns about the massive energy consumption of AI, especially generative models like ChatGPT and Midjourney. According to her research, these types of AI use...

www.thedailystar.net

Sasha Luccioni, a prominent researcher recognised by Time magazine as one of the top 100 influential figures in AI, has recently raised concerns about the massive energy consumption of AI, especially generative models like ChatGPT and Midjourney. According to her research, these types of AI use much more energy than traditional search engines—up to 30 times more—because they don't just pull up information; they create new content based on user input.

Speaking at the ALL IN Artificial Intelligence conference in Montreal, Luccioni explained that training AI models on vast amounts of data requires powerful servers that consume a lot of electricity. Once these models are up and running, responding to each user request continues to use a lot of energy.

How much electricity does AI consume?

How many watts and joules does it actually take to generate a single Balenciaga pope?

www.theverge.com

Luccioni and her colleagues ran tests on 88 different models spanning a range of use cases, from answering questions to identifying objects and generating images. In each case, they ran the task 1,000 times and estimated the energy cost. Most tasks they tested use a small amount of energy, like 0.002 kWh to classify written samples and 0.047 kWh to generate text. If we use our hour of Netflix streaming as a comparison, these are equivalent to the energy consumed watching nine seconds or 3.5 minutes, respectively. (Remember: that’s the cost to perform each task 1,000 times.) The figures were notably larger for image-generation models, which used on average 2.907 kWh per 1,000 inferences. As the paper notes, the average smartphone uses 0.012 kWh to charge — so generating one image using AI can use almost as much energy as charging your smartphone.

 

[Victor M]

One thing I use Chatgpt for is to search for package names. Each distro has a different name for the same thing. And Chatgpt gets it right 95% of the time. And you are not blindly trusting Chatgpt, if it gets it wrong your package manager will tell you immediately.