Can Google Scholar Survive the AI Revolution? 13
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Nature: Google Scholar -- the largest and most comprehensive scholarly search engine -- turns 20 this week. Over its two decades, some researchers say, the tool has become one of the most important in science. But in recent years, competitors that use artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the search experience have emerged, as have others that allow users to download their data. The impact that Google Scholar -- which is owned by web giant Google in Mountain View, California -- has had on science is remarkable, says Jevin West, a computational social scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle who uses the database daily. But "if there was ever a moment when Google Scholar could be overthrown as the main search engine, it might be now, because of some of these new tools and some of the innovation that's happening in other places," West says.
Many of Google Scholar's advantages -- free access, breadth of information and sophisticated search options -- "are now being shared by other platforms," says Alberto Martin Martin, a bibliometrics researcher at the University of Granada in Spain. AI-powered chatbots such as ChatGPT and other tools that use large language models have become go-to applications for some scientists when it comes to searching, reviewing and summarizing the literature. And some researchers have swapped Google Scholar for them. "Up until recently, Google Scholar was my default search," says Aaron Tay, an academic librarian at Singapore Management University. It's still top of his list, but "recently, I started using other AI tools." Still, given Google Scholar's size and how deeply entrenched it is in the scientific community, "it would take a lot to dethrone," adds West. Anurag Acharya, co-founder of Google Scholar, at Google, says he welcomes all efforts to make scholarly information easier to find, understand and build on. "The more we can all do, the better it is for the advancement of science." Acharya says Google Scholar uses AI to rank articles, suggest further search queries and recommend related articles. What Google Scholar does not yet provide are AI-generated summaries of search query results. According to Acharya, the company has yet to find "an effective solution" for summarizing conclusions from multiple papers in a brief manner that preserves all the important context.
Many of Google Scholar's advantages -- free access, breadth of information and sophisticated search options -- "are now being shared by other platforms," says Alberto Martin Martin, a bibliometrics researcher at the University of Granada in Spain. AI-powered chatbots such as ChatGPT and other tools that use large language models have become go-to applications for some scientists when it comes to searching, reviewing and summarizing the literature. And some researchers have swapped Google Scholar for them. "Up until recently, Google Scholar was my default search," says Aaron Tay, an academic librarian at Singapore Management University. It's still top of his list, but "recently, I started using other AI tools." Still, given Google Scholar's size and how deeply entrenched it is in the scientific community, "it would take a lot to dethrone," adds West. Anurag Acharya, co-founder of Google Scholar, at Google, says he welcomes all efforts to make scholarly information easier to find, understand and build on. "The more we can all do, the better it is for the advancement of science." Acharya says Google Scholar uses AI to rank articles, suggest further search queries and recommend related articles. What Google Scholar does not yet provide are AI-generated summaries of search query results. According to Acharya, the company has yet to find "an effective solution" for summarizing conclusions from multiple papers in a brief manner that preserves all the important context.
Can Bullshit Survive a Total Eclipse of My Balls? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Difficulty: All LLMs are equally bullshit and worthless.
Well, that's an improvement over making weird ad hominem attacks that are based on simply untrue claims about who owns what companies. But this is only a marginal improvement. In particular, that's not replying to any of the points at hand. You claimed that the public doesn't want LLMs. I responded with actual data showing that a large number of people are using it. Note that even if it were true that "All LLMs are equally bullshit and worthless," it would not make your claim that the public doesn't want LL
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Still missing the core part of this conversation, which is 1) all LLMs are worthless trash wasting everyone's time and energy, and 2) only weird nerds want to debate starngers on the internet. Be better.
1) Calling somethin the "core part of this conversation" doesn't mean you've established the claim you've made at all. Note also that if LLMs are "wasting everyone's time" then that's also in direct contradiction to your own prior claim that the public doesn't want LLM AIs. 2) Labeling other people "weird nerds" isn't an argument but just an ad hominem. It is also a particularly silly one to try on Slashdot of all places, which classically had the slogan "News for nerds, stuff that matters." You also seem t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for this being "spicy autocomplete," while the essential idea of a large language model has some resemblance to what an autocomplete does, it is far more than that.
No, there isn't. You've been taken in by a parlor trick. Take a look at this video [youtube.com] of Electro, a mechanical man from 1938 that responds to voice commands. The demo is real, it's not a puppet show, but it's carefully orchestrated to give you the impression that a lot more is happening than is actually happening. Once you know the trick, you lose the magic. The same is true for LLMs. They really are just "spicy autocomplete".
Re: (Score:2)
Can it survive? (Score:3)
Yes, probably.
As long as you can perform intelligent, sophisticated searches and Google resists the urge to enshitify it, I would say yes. I do not use Google search otherwise, but Google Scholar is useful. Reminds me of the good old days when you could actually craft an intelligent search and the search engine would return what you asked for.
Will it live forever? Of course not. Will it live until I retire? Likely yes. Once AI will adhere to my wishes, maybe it will die. But that seems a long way off.