Tech Tip: Looking to explore beyond Google? Learn how to utilize new generative AI search platforms

Many individuals believe that Google searches are declining in quality, and the emergence of generative AI chatbots is providing alternative methods for accessing information.

Although Google has been a one-stop shop for decades – after all, we usually call searches “Googling” – its long-standing dominance has attracted sponsored or spammy links and junk content fueled by “search engine optimization” techniques. It undermines really useful results.

According to a recent study by German researchers, the quality of Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo results is indeed declining. Google says its results are significantly higher quality than its competitors, citing third-party measurements.

Now, chatbots powered by generative artificial intelligence, also from Google itself, are ready to shake up the search operation. But they have their own problems: Because the technology is so new, there are concerns about the accuracy and reliability of AI chatbots.

If you want to try AI, here are the instructions:

WHERE CAN I FIND AI SEARCH TOOLS?

Google users don’t have to look far. The company launched its own AI chatbot assistant known as Bard last year, but recently retired that name and replaced it with a similar service, Gemini.

Bard users are now redirected to the Gemini website, which can be accessed directly from a desktop or mobile browser.

The Gemini app was also launched in the US this month, and will be rolled out in Japanese, Korean and English worldwide – except for the UK, Switzerland and Europe – according to an update announcement, which hints that more countries and languages are coming “soon”.

Google has also been testing a new search service called “Search Generative Experience”, which replaces links with an AI-generated snapshot of the most important information. But it’s limited to US users who sign up through the experimental Labs site.

Microsoft’s Bing search engine has been offering generative AI searches using OpenAI’s ChatGPT technology for about a year, first as Bing Chat, now rebranded as Copilot.

On the Bing search home page, click the Chat or Copilot button below the search window and you’ll get a chat interface where you can type your question. There is also the Copilot app.

A number of AI search sites have been launched, but they are not so easy to find. A standard Google search isn’t that helpful, but searches on Copilot and Bard turned up several names, including Perplexity, HuggingChat, You.com, Komo, Andi, Phind, Exa, and AskAI.

SHOULD I REGISTER OR PAY FOR THEM?

Most of these services have free versions. They usually limit the number of queries you can make, but offer premium tiers that offer smarter AI and more features.

For example, Gemini users can pay $20 for an advanced version that includes access to its “most capable” model, Ultra 1.0.

Gemini users must be signed in to their Google Account and at least 13 years old – 18 years old in Europe or Canada. Copilot users do not need to sign in to a Microsoft account and can access the service through Bing search or the Copilot home page.

Startup sites are largely free to use and do not require you to create an account. Many also have a premium level.

HOW DO I DO AN AI SEARCH?

Instead of typing in keywords, AI polls should be conversational—for example, “Is Taylor Swift the most successful female musician?” or “Where are some good places to travel in Europe this summer?”

Perplexity advises using “everyday, natural language.” Phind says it’s best to ask “complete and detailed questions” that start with words like “what is” or “how.”

If you are not satisfied with the answer, some sites allow you to ask follow-up questions without the required information. Some ask suggested or related questions.

With Microsoft’s Copilot, you can choose three different chat styles: creative, balanced, or accurate.

WHAT ARE THE RESULTS?

Unlike Google search results, which bring up a list of links, including Sponsored Links, AI chatbots spit out a readable summary of information, sometimes with a few important links as footnotes. The answers vary – sometimes widely – depending on the site.

They can be great when you’re looking for an obscure fact, such as a detail about European Union policy.

Phind.com’s responses were the most readable and were consistently presented in a narrative format. But the site has mysteriously gone offline at some points.

Let’s test a simple query – what is the average temperature in London in the second half of February? — produced similar results at most sites: 7-9 degrees Celsius (45-48 Fahrenheit).

Andi strangely provided the current weather conditions for New York, although it used the correct city on another attempt later.

The second search – the names and tenures of CEOs of British luxury car maker Aston Martin – is the kind of information that’s available online, but requires some work.

Most sites come up with names in the last decade or two. AskAI provided the list from 1947, along with its three main “official sources”, but without links.

WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?

While chatbots may sound authoritative because they produce answers that appear to be written by a confident human, they are not always correct. AI chatbots have been known to produce deceptively convincing responses called “hallucinations.” HuggingChat warns, “Content generated may be inaccurate or false,” and Gemini says it may “show inaccurate information, including about people.”

These AI systems scan large amounts of data collected online, known as large language patterns, and then use algorithms to find consistent answers, but not all of them reveal how they got their answers.

Some AI chatbots reveal the patterns their algorithms have been trained on. Others provide little or no information. The best advice is to try more than one and compare the results and always check the sources.

For example, at one point Komo claimed that Canada had a population of about one million people in 1991, and stuck to that wrong number even after I asked if it was certain. It cited a Wikipedia page which revealed that the figure came from a table on the country’s indigenous population. It found the correct number when I tried again later.