j45

I thought I had finished my sentence - the companies have different GTM, and maybe different trust/experience.

This site is a great flex in innovation over decades.

Claude may have captured a different mindshare of the past year who tried AI before and it didn't work.

The more people see AI is still just software (albeit a different kind), the more they will remember to instead start with where/how it works.

I agree with this.

ChatGPT and Claude are differently operating and behaving products in the same space.

One is a little better/ different at considering the web, and the other is a juggernaut at sentences and reading in between / connecting the lines.

I'm also pretty proud, first flagged post ever for saying the obvious that they're two different companies.

They have different approaches to the tools they're providing. That fits people differently.

[flagged]

Standardization is valuable.

Respectfully it's up to the maintainer who decides where they think it shoudl go.

After I read the same I thought, ok, that's what _they_ wanted to do.

Me? I'd love to see what could be rewritten to be 100% future proofed for as many years as possible. But see what that did? I have to share, and see if anyone else already thought of this (I doubt I'm the first ever to have this thought), and maybe, I'll be lucky enough to benefit from someone exploring it already, before I decide to put on a jedi robe and wave my hands to use the force to move AI around.

Pico is a great little library.

Thank you to the developer and maintainer

For what it’s worth I had to force Claude early in to use pico and not ever generate react or ornate tailwind.

Pico is extraordinary for standalone tools where ai can’t let complexity build out of control.

Maybe there’s other options but pico is what got it done, and vanilla LLMs has a hard time keeping something this simple and elegant and flexible.

RIP

It may or may. not try to convince anything.

Often when we use a search engine, we're trying to piece together something that might be across multiple links, or a single link

Google's AI search is different because they have the history of what right, and quality looks like, it's not just the most common webpages.

It's not about whether it moves on or not.

Google ranked the best results, not the most commonly occurring ones.

AI is by default returning the highest statistical percentage of what it thinks you are looking for in a response, which may or may not be a search result.

A fun example is having the AI run a search, and comparing it to perplexity, or even gemini a little. OpenAI is improving, and Claude is pretty consistently not made for comprehensive search.

Search is not analysis like you're describing.

It seems this way - however, it's not.

Google's organic search results are ranked by quality (including how many people click on them).

AI, generally thinks the best result is what's most common, or average, resulting in decent results, but not the best for what you're looking for.

We notice it when we're looking for a level of specificity google can hit, compared to an ai model. It's why Google's AI search can hit a bit differen too.

The example that comes to top of mind is a search that is not made for search rarely can compare to something as well as Perplexity.

AI can definitely be a more natural experience for search, but it doesn't return better search results.