> * Phind provides copious relevant sources including github, stackoverflow and others. This is a major advantage, especially if you use these AI assistants as a jumping off ground for further research.
I don't use Phind for coding, except occasionally, but I like it best for generalised tech search because each para has a reference and there's a list of references down the side -- often the references would really be sufficient for me on their own.
I've had one glaring error, I can't quite remember the details, but it switched the names/characteristics of two different processes (ie was exactly opposite in what it said); it was something to do with instruction caching and TLB, IIRC. I assumed you'd was a problem with the input corpus not allowing antonyms to be disambiguated.
Anyway, for me it's the best of the LLM tools I have access to and had mostly replaced search engine (Google, Dukgo) for my tech-related work.
I've only used chat.openai.com (free), bing chat, HuggingChat.
I don't think "correct" is the right word since these were open ended systems design type questions. There are many ways to accomplish the same task.
I also spent about 20 minutes on this which is why I mentioned this is a first impression. I'll leave it to researchers to develop a "relevancy" metric and objectively apply it.
In my experience, the sources were sufficiently relevant based on its responses. They were about as relevant as equivalent Google queries. Some tiny, tiny niggles, like I was explicit I wanted it to recommend approaches in Go and for one reference I recall related to distributed locking mechanisms it provided a reference to an implementation in Java. However, that is completely fine for me since the context was more about the locking on the database side and not really the implementation in a specific language.
The sources are urls to the cited page (e.g. stackoverflow.com, pkg.go.dev). In the side-bar next to the answer is a more standard search-result style link list with pulled quotes from the pages (like a Google search).
I didn't click every single link (as I mentioned, the citations are copious) but the few I did follow went to relevant articles. I just went back and randomly clicked several more and they all went to pages that exist and mostly relate to the content of the answer. The inline citations seem a bit more on-topic compared to the side bar which does seem more like the links were lifted directly from a search engine.
To be fair there are some lower-quality blog-spammy kinda stuff - more or less the same kind of thing you would get out of Google. But compared to GPT-4, which provides no sources whatsoever, it is an advantage IMO.
Did you find them to be correct?