This. I was skeptical at first, but it is indeed good at searching and answering questions without! That said, I still have to double-check results for niche queries or about stuff that is relatively new. Sometimes, the "sources" for the answers are just someone's opinions — unsubstantiated by any facts — on an old Reddit post that's only tangentially related to the topic. And sometimes, you simply know that manual search and digging through SO answers yourself will yield better results. At this point I've developed a gut feeling that helps me decide whether to prompt Perplexity or just g**gle it.
> the "sources" for the answers are just someone's opinions — unsubstantiated by any facts
Isn't that the nature of the web?
I mean, that's exactly what I expect from web searches, so as long as you don't consider the fancy-looking [1] citations "scientific", it just digs up the same information, but summarized.
I don't expect miracles: Perplexity does the same things I've been doing, just faster. It's like a bicycle I guess.
