The advent of LLMs has given rise to generative search, a new search paradigm in which LLMs retrieve information from the web related to a query and synthesize it into a single, coherent response. This paradigm differs fundamentally from traditional web search, where results are returned as a ranked list of independent web pages. In this paper, we ask: Along what dimensions does generative search differ from traditional search?We conduct a systematic comparison between Google organic search and five generative search systems from three providers: Google, OpenAI, and Perplexity. Our analysis reveals substantial variation among engines in their reliance on internal v.s. external knowledge, source diversity, and stability. While generative systems often achieve topical coverage comparable to traditional search, they do so using markedly different retrieval footprints and synthesis strategies. We further show that the outputs of generative search can vary across time and executions, raising new challenges for robustness. Our findings demonstrate that generative search introduces new dimensions that are not captured by existing evaluation paradigms, motivating the development of evaluations that explicitly account for retrieval behavior, synthesis, and stability in generative search systems.

Last few years have seen unprecedented advances in capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). These advancements promise to benefit a vast array of application domains. However, due to their immense size, performing inference with LLMs is both costly and slow. Consequently, a plethora of recent work has proposed strategies to enhance inference efficiency, e.g., quantization, pruning, and caching. These acceleration strategies reduce the inference cost and latency, often by several factors, while maintaining much of the predictive performance measured via common benchmarks. In this work, we explore another critical aspect of LLM performance: demographic bias in model generations due to inference acceleration optimizations. Using a wide range of metrics, we probe bias in model outputs from a number of angles. Analysis of outputs before and after inference acceleration shows significant change in bias. Worryingly, these bias effects are complex and unpredictable. A combination of an acceleration strategy and bias type may show little bias change in one model but may lead to a large effect in another. Our results highlight a need for in-depth and case-by-case evaluation of model bias after it has been modified to accelerate inference.This paper contains prompts and outputs which may be deemed offensive.