Basically people who want to search, will now not be able to, they'll be forced into a UI they might have consciously avoided, otherwise they'd be using their chatbot in the first place. Seems like a strange UX decision, rather than recommending "Hey maybe you want to try our chatbot", they just force the user into a chat straight up.
That's the whole shape of AI for consumer-facing functions like this. It's not superior to the previous experience, but huge sunk costs and a misguided belief it's the "next thing" is leading companies to try to force the issue. It's the Apple removing the headphone jack of the modern Internet. A change for the worse that we'll all have to find ways to work around.
Google famously dragged on development of Glass for more than a decade stubbornly failing to admit that nobody wants to look like a cyborg the entire time only to be swept aside by Meta when they built a device that was glasses first with some recording and interactions built in.
If their leadership has an itch they'll scratch it until it's raw.
Google glass released in February 2013 and "I, glasshole" was written in December of 2013 which was a good formulation of ideas that had been floating in the tech sphere for a while. That's less than 1 year into their run that "Making myself look like a cyborg obviously makes people around me uncomfortable" was a plainly accepted fact.
I think wearable tech is awesome and was interested in this (I was much more interested in the earlier pendant projectors though) but the fact that you're constantly reminding people they're being recorded without their consent is just a big issue. The meta glasses themselves might suffer a similar fate if hacks to disable the LED become commonplace. Much like Sony's (I think?) nightvision cameras if stuff like this gets abused by creeps it will isolate you to use it yourself even for perfectly reasonable intentions.
Beyond the AI expenses, prompting captures more information from the consumer that keyword search. I assume they can take a lot of advantage from this and a new generation of ad engines is near the corner.
There's a measure of game theory here too. If Google didn't hop on the AI train, people would use ChatGPT or Claude to fill the Internet with slop and 10-blue-links Google would cease working anyway (which it kinda has already). So their only option is to hop on the AI train and disrupt themselves, lest they be disrupted by others.
It's very much a Prisoner's Dilemma. Legacy search and the open Internet was an equilibrium that only existed while the majority of people co-operated. Once you allow an individual actor the ability to create large chunks of the Internet, it dies. Your only option is to be that individual actor.
It is weird that they're putting all their eggs in one basket though. Wouldn't a more sensible business move be to launch that platform (and advertise it heavily) but maintain the old search UX to fend off competition?
Going all in like this carries a very real risk of burning users onto other platforms and the continued evolution of integrated search bars are already slicing off significant user segments.
I assume they internally see the traffic they are losing to ChatGPT and see this as the best path forward. Or it's even more simple, and much like stacking sponsored links at the top of the results, they see that no one interacts with content below the AI response anyway.
I read some of the article and skimmed the rest, and didn't see anything about old-fashioned search no longer being an option.
Is the idea that by making the new AI chat UX the default, that's how they're forcing people into it and making them not able to search? Or is there something I'm missing?
> Instead of returning a simple list of links, Google Search will drop users into AI-powered interactive experiences at times.
So basically you'd get redirect into a chatbot interface, rather than letting you browse search results as normal, "AI-powered interactive experience" tends to be euphemism for chatbot UIs, is my experience at least.
People who wanted to ask a specific question now won't have that option. Instead, they'll simply be shown whatever Google thinks is most relevant to them at that moment. The "Chat" UI we've grown so accustomed to is on its way out.
It doesn’t really say in the article search is going away.
A lot of Google search is in the format of “company X”, then clicking the third link down (after two paid ads) to open company X’s website. (I have no idea how much this is, but it’s gotta be a lot)
That’s like free money. It doesn’t look like they’re getting rid of search, but expanding the AI/conversational features.
According to Kagi I search 11-50 times a day, about 600 searches per month. I do about 10-20 AI/assistant conversations per week, so maybe 2-3 a day, and usually when search fails or I can’t get the right query words in. I do this over my AI apps because the Kagi index is faster/better.
I can’t imagine Google would give up the bulk queries that pull in easy ad revenue. But if Google can push/upsell you into a really high value referral where they can start pulling a claim in your purchase, I could see them pushing to get into that.
Given how Google has managed their core products I expect them to monetize AI searches as aggressively as possible over the long term. At best we'll get highly tailored paid suggestions inserted into chats. But I think it's more likely they get baked right into the model in ways that users and ad blockers have no chance of detecting or blocking.
Bing has been better than Google for some time. Again, it's embarrassing for them to sacrifice marketshare for paid results and an intermediate-form AI fad that will turn into the same paid result funnel.
e.g. for a two keyword search, Google & DDG return results containing a similar (but more at the moment, more popular, so I understand why they do this) keyword as the first one, and no relation whatsoever with the second. Any search that manages to actually show results related to both of my input terms get the "better" award from me.
DuckDuckGo uses the bing index/backend. I’ve had it as default for 5-8 years. Probably once a day I’ll add the !g to pop it over to Google. Works great. I search a lot, many different types of queries. When I pop over to Google it’s usually a Boolean query looking for a needle in a haystack (that one comment somewhere where someone is using the same combination of two or three rare items together).
While there are good options like DuckDuckGo, Mojeek, Ecosia, there are plenty of (better) alternatives, where you're not the product [1], I'd recommend looking into!
I'm sure there's a niche for a product for search nerds. Something that leans into inverted indexes like the classic Lexis/Nexis search. But it's got to have Google-like coverage.
Niche + Google-like coverage is not very economically viable. To store and update a search index of that size requires a lot of resources, and being niche means you don’t have a lot of resources.
Very few of the smaller search engines actually do their own indexing for exactly this reason.
The problem is that the web as we know it (useful, human-curated information that's put out there to help people) is also over. It's been totally overrun with AI slop. Even before AI could be used to create propaganda on a scale that we could only dream about 5 years ago, it's been declining under the weight of SEO sweatshops for a good 10 years. Meanwhile the actually decent content, the individual hobbyists who are just sharing their knowledge, have largely left under the weight of comment spam and DDoS attacks and doxxing.
So if another search engine does arise, it won't find anything useful, because the useful content on the web has been buried under slop, and largely removed. Your best bet today is a curated directory, sorta like the original Yahoo, where you allowlist the web to only real sites, download them, and make them searchable. I think this is actually Kagi's approach. But the open web as we knew and loved it is dead.
I've been using Startpage as my default search engine for a while now for any search where I actually need information and not sales or marketing bullshit.
When I use google, usually from my phone, I am reminded of why I don't use google on desktop.
With the announcement of this move by them, I just manually removed google as an address bar search engine option in all my browsers on desktop and mobile.
Every organization eventually is taken over by the people who operate within it effectively, to the detriment of the people who operate outside and provide the actual public value. Google’s making a terrible, though understandable, mistake. They think people go to Google to see what Google wants to show them. This is like the people who run the airport imagining that travelers are popping by to see the decorations.
They are surely hearing themselves say the same things about how Google is “everything in one place” that every failed corporation parrots on their way out.
It's been over for years. Google scares companies into bidding against each other just to be seen. It's a complete farce & a racket. It's the pay to play web.
Which as some running a website raises a fascinating question. If Google is just going to crawl my sites and present information as an AI summary on their site, then what exactly do I gain by allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites?
Free speculation: I could see a future where Google populates a footer on results with the website logos of the sources. Presumably, the new web will require users to memorize websites/brands and go directly to those sites if they see a lot of their results are being provided by one source.
Websites may go back to being simply labors of love.
> ChatGPT/Claude does this today. I barely click or care for the source when they already have me the info I wanted.
Maybe I'm just #builtdifferent, but I click these a lot. Especially if I'm trying to research or make a decision on something, I want the actual source and not the potentially-fudged summary.
> Websites may go back to being simply labors of love.
The situation may be even worse. Back in the labor of love era, at least webmasters could get feedback from readers. In the LLM era, readers may not even know that the site exists. Without feedback/community, the overall quality of those sites will decrease over time.
It seems like they should have a model similar to YouTube. If I watch a video on YouTube made by someone, they get a little cash, and it ads up.
Similarly, if I use Gemini uses a website for an answer, it should pay something to those sites for the information it gathered. Sites would need to sign up to earn via Google, and I'd imagine there would be a certain threshold to cross to make it worth cutting checks... but that would make all these AI search tools feel much less scummy while providing site owners an incentive to keep sharing information on the internet.
Where a model like this would get messy is with sites like reddit. It's a very popular source for AI search, but the value comes from the users, not the platform itself.
Actually it cannot work this way, content creators make far more money from ads in the video itself compared to the one yt gives them. If it were for yt money alone basically we will still be in the 2010 yt: folks that doing it just for fun.
The problem with all this AI/llm stuff is that end users doesn't even know your tiny site with a lot of useful information exists at all.
Google's AI summaries already do this. I occasionally click through to see the underlying source the AI summary leaned on to generate the response, but probably only ~20% of the time.
A couple of years back I worked with a company which maintained specific data which was the main traffic driver on that page.
Google approached them and wanted to pay for the rights to get the data and display it on top of the search results, a feature which was fairly new back then.
This was an interesting dilemma because it was very clear that the money was way less than the loss in ad revenue due to traffic drop, but it was also clear that if we wouldn’t take the deal, a more desperate competitor would, which would result in the same traffic loss but without the extra google money.
So the company took the deal.
History repeats itself here, with the difference that instead of paying for the data, the ai crawlers simply take it for free.
The fact is that internet is already "tech giants own realm": the power is way beyond public imagination and affects all of us in real life on daily bases, but there are still people thinking they are not the "evil one" here.
It's worse than that. They train their models preferentially on what they consider to be high-quality data. But if you look at the usual "references" on search queries, they're often just a post-hoc BS justification that links to spam blogs or Tiktok videos.
Mechanisms might exist to make you think you have one, the same way copywrite should prevent millions of books being gobbled up by TheZuck but ultimately do you really have a choice?
Yes, Google advertises its crawler IP ranges and it is quite easy to keep track of this and block them. But only if you control the infrastructure that your site runs on of course.
As far as I know, you don't have a choice. They have no obligation to respect your wishes, and LLMs are legally allowed to scrape & republish your content.
It's a catch-22. Without google crawling your site, you don't get any new traffic. But with google crawling your site, you also might not get any traffic.
AI summarization has already causes issues for sites like rtings where people are no longer visiting the site but still making use of the data presented there. Leading to rtings not getting enough traffic to continue to post their data.
It is an existential crisis for websites and when they go away it'll be an existential crisis for AI.
> Without google crawling your site, you don't get any new traffic
What about the stories of marketing managers who learned months after the fact that their credit card had expired and their google ad spend had ceased with no affect on traffic? Google isn't always an effective promotional vehicle.
Sounds like a pretty ineffective manager: wasn’t buying the correct ad placement in the first place, used a personal card to sign up for an ostensibly corporate service, didn’t keep track of expiration dates for the card, and was also ignoring email notifications from Google about the expired card. Let me know if I’m missing any other reasons why this manager should be fired instantly.
Well in addition to what you wrote, the marketing manager ALSO wasn't tracking any ad-related marketing performance indicator (CTR, CR, etc.) in any measurable way for very long periods of time... or they would have caught it almost immediately ("wow ad spend, CTR and CR have all suddenly gone down to 0/0% and have been staying there for days on all our campaigns! What's up with that?").
> Without google crawling your site, you don't get any new traffic. But with google crawling your site, you also might not get any traffic.
I may be strange and unusual, but I just have never cared about my Google ranking. I know this makes me out of the ordinary among site owners but I have been humming along fine.
This certainly will disrupt traffic but for some of my sites I honestly think this is a good thing. I want you to want to be there, not just stumble upon my site because you happen to hit the right search keyword. Plus if it gets bad, this does create a new opportunity for others with cross linking and search.
Only issue is what happens when the company that owns the search and has a dominant share of the browser market flags your site with the good old "warning: potential risk ahead" when people try to reach it directly? And buries the "I know the risk let me through" deep in the browser settings. Advocate for different browsers? Google is pushing web attestation in one form or the other. I wish the future would look bleak, because right now it's looking blue, red, yellow and green and it's worse.
> Only issue is what happens when the company that owns the search and has a dominant share of the browser market flags your site with the good old "warning: potential risk ahead" when people try to reach it directly?
My target market is more technical then that so likely, nothing would change for me. Again, I recognize the impact of Google's dominance for some, but if the "attestation" isn't helpful and only hinders using services that people have come to rely on, there will be push back.
I also have been advocating for years for everyone in my circle to avoid using Chrome. A homogenized browser market is a risk, and Chrome is the new IE. I hope you are also a part of the effort to advocate for browser diversity.
Yes! However most of my users were established through my network, not search.
I know that sites relying on ad income will and are being hurt tremendously by this effort on Google's part. However, if you are in the startup space and make money on services you offer, search should be one of several strategies you are deploying for user growth.
There are other ways to block robots from crawling our sites. I have a robots.txt but place no faith in it, it’s just there because it’s cheap and does stop some of the crawlers.
Internet is more and more becoming a commercialization platform. If you are selling something on your website, you still want Google (or ChatGPT for that matters) to expose customers to your product. The gate is the actual delivery of the product is behind a purchase/signup.
Google and others want to control the entire customer journey, to the point the your website is simply a way to pass metadata to them. They are actually achieving this!
this kills the entire internet vibe of the 90s, early 2k
> is more and more becoming a commercialization platform
FTFY: "couple of decades since has become". The vibes of passion-driven 1990s started to be overwhelmed by the din of money right when the Internet has become a major commerce venue, some time in early 2000s.
You're allowed to exist on the web. The alternative is you are pushed out, your site is not indexed and google / chrome labels it as a security risk when people are trying to reach it directly. The mandate is clear: give up the data or give up the spot.
I write things on the internet because I want to share ideas. If someone reads my post and tells a friend, that's great. If an AI crawls my posts and passes along the ideas that's great too.
(It doesn't work for ad-funded writing, but while I have substantial sympathy there this has historically been an unpopular argument on HN)
Setting aside ad-driven revenue - the ideas, when spat out by an llm, are disconnected from the author. If people like your ideas, they aren’t becoming fans/followers/long-term-readers. That means good luck leveraging some interesting writing into a book, a speaking tour, a podcast, or even any kind of consistent readership. The llm slurps up your content and monetizes it while you get nothing.
I'm not interested in a book, speaking tour, or podcast. I've never had consistent readership because I write about too many unrelated things. I blog because I have ideas I want to share; I don't feel at all ripped off.
Fair enough, sounds like you won’t be impacted. But the vast majority of people i read online are able to write the content i enjoy because there are paths to earn a living off it. I expect the future of llm search will leave only hobbyists and slop producers standing.
Maybe you want your ideas to spread? If your sites purpose is getting ad impressions then yea no point. But if your purpose is to spread ideas then it is still useful.
If your site is all about disseminating information (like Wikipedia), then Google would provide a free mirror of sorts.
If your site is about your product, Google won't be able to serve the sign-up page from AI; the traffic would come your way. Same for a site that sell something: the traffic you're interested in would arrive at your checkout page.
Paid-content sites and ad-supported sites are screwed though, on top of their being screwed by archive.is and ad blockers.
The really confusing part about the ad-supported sites is that most of them are supported by Google's ad products. So Google is eating their own lunch here.
Websites will die on the vine if LLMs intermediate all the content.
The "website" of the future will be an API optimized for LLM crawlers, serving plain-text content that no end-user will ever view directly. The SEO game will change to LLMAO.
> Websites will die on the vine if LLMs intermediate all the content.
The current zeitgeist of them will, but I think not all.
My first website (GeoCities) was either before Google existed or very close to it. Connected to people via WebRings and directory listings. More recently, RSS feeds.
Yeah there will likely continue be a small underground of old-style websites I guess. But you'll have to be in the loop on how to find them, and very few people will pay to advertise on them.
Alternatively, we can collectively "fight back" by not using Google and teaching others around us to do so as well. There are plenty of decent [1] and great (better) alternatives, where you're not the product [2]!
There is actually another way that was just hinted at a few days ago demonstrated by the EU courts reaffirming a law from 2019 against Meta, just force google et al to compensate publishers:
That translates to "Force Google to give money to these specific organizations and newspapers which EU leaders wish to benefit". It won't help any individuals who has made great websites with important and popular information.
Here is what I think the future web may look like:
1) Sites will have mcp / APIs for LLMs. So that when I ask my AI Agent du jour. It can call any of the sites where I have subscriptions for information.
2) Sites that are passion projects will be harvested by our LLM overlords.
3) Sites that people don't type into their web browser and need ad revenue will die.
4) SEO will finally die.
Or more likely move towards substack or newsletters where the pitch is - Don’t let the LLM chose the output for you, go directly to our Substack/newsletter instead.
This will happen especially with things like conspiracy theories because the choice might be to pollute the output or share the general consensus. Like searches for Apollo landing conspiracy theories can either chose to present “alternate facts” so that people can “do their own research” and conclude it is fake or LLM auto corrects to “Apollo landing happened”.
He also spins a lot of trash talk about an industry he's never personally worked in as any kind of engineer at all. He's a "Journalist Covering Tech" without a degree in journalism, so he's not even a "Tech Journalist"; might as well be the blogger character from Silicon Valley.
> Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago.
His hot takes are best ignored, is just convenient click bait for their entire negativity angle.
Initially I thought AI would would crush google search, but starting to think the opposite. Think they have survived the transition.
After I got tired of perplexity's nonsense I realized the workspace account (which I have for custom email domain) came with fancy gemini pro chat.
Was a fucking ripoff for the domain thing...but domain plus premium chat clearly marked as "we won't train on your data"...the math starts mathing better again.
I understand the consternation here about this change. And I've noticed recently getting frustrated because I'm looking for a search list but the UI throws me into AI mode first. But the think is I use traditional search so much less now that those annoyances are the exception. I can't say whether they are making a mistake, but they've got to have extensive data, and I'm going to bet that an overwhelming amount of people don't click through to the search results anymore for most quick queries. They probably really don't have a choice if they are going to effectively keep ChatGPT at bay. Of course, all this is terrible for the internet. That headline should have been: The Internet as you know it is over.
I think this will be one of those things that the hacker news crowd lambasts and calls a mistake but will either be neutral or seen as a positive to your average user.
Agree, but the average user trusts the AI knowledge box as expert summary, even though clicking through often reveals contrary information, so this is going to be a net negative overall for a while…
I think you underestimate how many users loathe that "Generated with AI" box. But for me the bigger question is why they're going all in on this instead of a gradual rollout or a new tool offering.
I think people are sick of hearing about AI but they’ll embrace this change for the simple reason that they hate computers and want to feel like they’re taking to a human.
The average user may be fine with it (though I think many will not). But given this is basically killing the open web, I don't see where Google plans to get the results to feed this AI thing in a year or so
Yeh, my sense as well. I'm just out of college, and can tell you people my age use AI all the time and will probably be happy with this change. There is a diehard anti-AI group, but it seemed smaller all the time over the past couple years.
The average user makes fun of how bad the Google AI generated responses are. I somehow don't think they're going to embrace a plan for that slop to be the only thing available.
Until you realize that Kagi only works well because it uses a (paid) third-party API which behind the scenes does a classic Google search, scrapes its results in real time, throws out the ads, and then returns the cleaned-up results.
If Google Search changes, then Kagi's search will be impacted directly.
The other search indexes are largely negligible in comparison: [0]
> This is not a competitive market. It is a monopoly with a distant second place.
> The search index is irreplaceable infrastructure. Building a comparable one from scratch is like building a parallel national railroad. Microsoft spent roughly $100 billion over 20 years on Bing and still holds single-digit share. If Microsoft cannot close the gap, no startup can do it alone.
The web would probably be a lot healthier if we had several small search engines that focused on niches rather than 5 failed search engines that tried to index everything that was ever written and then ended up paying Bing.
They also have their own index. But in any case, what matters here is the product UX itself not the internal details, and they do offer a classic search experience
I understand why they are doing this. My Google search usage is easily down 50%+. I doubt I am unique here.
While there are times where I want pure search (Kagi, Old Google) I mostly use LLMs to search now and have them provide me links for source data.
When I do use LLMs as a search engine I always want it integrated into my AI workflows with access to tools and scripts etc. I never want to have a conversation with a website that is geared towards advertising me products.
I'm not at all in the same boat as you; I do not and likely will never primarily rely on LLMs for information. But it's fascinating to hear that even folks who do don't find this approach useful.
I think LLMs are better at finding the most helpful sources now, but that's more a testament to how much the front page of web search has lost to low value LLM content.
The fact that you can express "Only show me websites run by Italian companies incorporated by Greece owners born in Turkey" for example, and it'll be able to filter through a bunch of stuff, just makes searching so much easier. Fuzzy-search is also on another level with language models.
this is exactly it… if google was smart they would focus on providing that experience on search vs. AI summarizing results. I want that fluid search experience, with refinement that remembers my previous ask…
For me, Google search results have gotten so poor (and other engines aren’t any better), that I’d rather just ask an online LLM for what I’m looking for.
I was once very good at advanced Google search queries but they seem to no longer respect such queries - either showing irrelevant results or none at all (that should exist).
I don’t love LLMs, but they seem to not make up stuff very often these days and usually cite links to what they summarized. Sometimes the tone of the summary is slightly wrong “algorithm X was designed for Y” (when I know it wasn’t) but it’s otherwise very close to the mark.
What does amaze me, is the LLM seems to “understand” my question with very little context — I would have to give a human many more details about goals/intent.
I know damn LLMs are not capable of thought and are just a glorified search engine, but they do it well. Perhaps all my education made me little more…
I used to mock Sci-Fi movies where characters lazily dictated questions to the computer and it gave high quality answers.
Yep, really advanced Google searches were never that good. LLM, yeah, it halucinates, it's never spot on but as sure as heck it knows what I'm trying to ask. It doesn't give me arborists if I say something like "list tree searches".
Been using Kagi search for more than a year. Been happy. I use GPT/et al for the little things (e.g. unit conversions, rather than search for and then try to use an enshittified web page from 10 years ago). But for actual real tech leaning content, Kagi has been pretty good.
As a user and fan of kagi, the problem with kagi is that it reveals how badly degraded the web is.
The vast majority of original content is now in one or another social network or on discord. News articles are an exception, though the news has its own problems. Some wikis still exist and are actively maintained, of course, but not a ton. If it's a topic that's academically studied you might find information in papers, but those have poor web visibility and are better located with specialty tools. LLMs seem to be quite good at locating papers, though.
I've used Kagi for a few years but it's gotten significantly worse for me the last year or so. I'm curious if anyone else has seen the same thing happen. I'll search for something and usually see a bunch of barely relevant SEO sites. Avoiding this is why I started paying for Kagi in the first place, so it's been disappointing to see. Marginalia Search (https://marginalia-search.com/) seems to be better at finding content written by humans rather than SEO specialists, but it's not a silver bullet (for example, the last time I checked they didn't index non-English sites).
LLMs are so frequently inaccurate its crazy to think of it fully replacing search.
I've been trying to use LLMs for things and it makes mistakes all the time. Just this week i had multiple instances of various LLMs basically saying "just run the software with --flag-that-fixes-your-problem" or "edit the config and add solve-your-issue=true" hallucinating non-existant options. Even if i manually link the relevant documentation pages it will still just make basic mistakes. and if im having to read the documentation myself anyway to fix the AI's mistakes, why is the AI even in the loop.
its infecting search too, because blogspam/slop articles are managing to make their way into search results by just making up untrue information, claiming software can do things it cant, or has options that don't exist.
Perhaps I've just internalized it -- I know that's unreliable and I just deal with it. LLMs are certainly capable of searching the web and finding the right answer directly so you still don't have to read the documentation.
> LLMs are so frequently inaccurate its crazy to think of it fully replacing search.
It's baffling that people have become so devoted to them as a source of information given how inaccurate they are. I've learned not to trust anything they say, ever, especially when it comes to technical subjects.
LLMs-as-search-proxies have some pretty nice capabilities. For instance you can say "limit your search to scientific papers" and they'll do a much nicer job. I've also had some success recently prompting them with "I'm looking for reputable sources", e.g. recently I was looking for ways to repel deer from my apple tres. A naive internet search had vendors of shady crap jumping me. The LLMs pulled up relevant papers and university extension programs from my area.
Though I will say I get much better results from the LLMs I pay for than the free ones with Google or DuckDuckGo, which seem to be way way way more prone to just make crap up based on your search and cite web pages that, when followed, don't have the claim being made in the AI search results at all. By contrast every "source" link I've followed in the for-money AIs has 100% backed what the AI said it backed. Don't judge by the free AIs the search engines put out, those things are probably starved of resources and are nearly useless.
(Which I did not intend as a commentary on Google's plans here, but it is a data point of interest... that pressure to cut costs on the "free" services is quite directly at odds with providing quality AI services for the forseeable future.)
Just today, I think that I got a useful citation in DuckDuckGo’s Search Assist (AI stuff) sources for the very first time. The sources it lists have hitherto invariably been already right there in the regular results, or actually not supporting the AI output at all (the far more common case). There was also a useful regular search result in second or third position, but the one in the Search Assist citations was better, and not in the regular search results, even on the second page.
And I’ve tried Google’s once or twice and seen it used once or twice, and used ChatGPT exactly once, last week, and I was not at all impressed by any of them. Their output, for what I’ve personally seen, has been nonsense, obvious, or unverifiable.
> I get much better results from the LLMs I pay for than the free ones with Google or DuckDuckGo, which seem to be way way way more prone to just make crap up based on your search
Same here. The free version probably gets orders of magnitude less of a compute budget, though, so I am not really surprised.
What I find really surprising though is how many people still have only ever used the free version of any LLM, even those that are heavy users and could easily afford it. It seems like a pretty big and basic product marketing mistake to me to limit capabilities instead of usage time in the free version! How are people supposed to learn what they'd get if they were to pay?
As a concrete example, some advertising supported topics place search as an unwanted middleman, may as well ask a LLM directly. Consider "chocolate chip cookie recipe".
Using google search, will return roughly infinite recipe sites. The sites were generated to spam AI generated recipes surrounded by advertisements. None of them are really any good because they were generated by a script and not looked at by a human until I come along and click. The standard is for all recipes to have at least 10-15 screenfulls of vertical spam wrapped by ads for recipe pages. The internet, at least using Search, is now useless for food recipes. I would have better, faster luck driving to the public library and looking in a physical cookbook; at least those recipes were probably tested at least once by humans unlike the advertising spam sites. Nobody has 45 minutes to watch 44 minutes of filler material surrounded by ads on Youtube either. If you want to cook food, the internet is near dead at this time, unfortunately.
AI search will plagiarize the "Original Nestle Toll House" recipe from the back of every bag of chocolate chips ever made. Its a good recipe and I've baked them many times over the decades.
I wish the internet were more useful, but the people in charge of it don't want it to be useful; here have some ragebait and doomscroll while watching the ads.
Search results are 80% SEO low-quality garbage nowadays. Very often, the sites even generate their content with AI. So for many use cases I stopped bothering with search and directly ask LLMs instead.
LLM hallucinations are better than Google results these days and I'm not even trying to tell a silly joke. It's more useful for an LLM to lie to my face about 10% of my query, be suspicious and dig out that useful information than to try to parse the absolute slop returned by a normal, non-AI Google query.
I don't comprehend how the average person gets any useful information out of Google.
Google has optimized their hardcoded search engine so much for the natural language searches people actually use, that they made it useless as an actual tool for someone who wants to find information. AI jumped over all of that and is BETTER at natural language searches, leaving the google search engine largely useless for anyone.
Or subtly misrepresent politically inconvenient facts, or gently steer you into opinions based on a synthesis of broker data and demographic info, or quietly flag you in some database column due to exhibiting dissident-adjacent ideas or behaviors, or...
Yeah, they probably aren't doing (most of) these now, but it doesn't take much mental energy to extrapolate once you factor nearly every other tech company's ethical trajectory and the current geopolitical environment. Substituting classic search entirely with LLMs is not a savvy move.
Certainly, but with (what I consider to be) a key distinction: classic search, by definition, must serve information from many distinct sources outside the control of the search company.
A search engine could certainly tamper with which of these sources they surface/rank higher (which I suspect happening more often of late), but they're still obliged by their nature to branch out and seek information from the broader world.
LLMs, on the other hand, are self-contained opaque monoliths that can be conditioned to deceive or obfuscate with devious cleverness, and all control over their behaviors is entirely concentrated in the hands of whatever corporation trains them.
My thought here is that there are many. They have proven to be commodities in most use cases.
As soon as one gets annoying, expensive, advertiser heavy etc. you just rip it out and replace it with the other one. AFAICT there is zero lock-in or moat. I often am able to switch models in one click or command. This is why all the LLM providers are desperate for a product layer/comprehensive tool set.
Sure maybe they all end up that way, but there’s plenty of reasons corporate customers will want private LLM usage that is not skewed towards advertising. I am happy to pay for that.
Also, open source models are a bulwark against another search style ad Monopoly.
> I never want to have a conversation with a website that is geared towards advertising me products.
The advertisements fed the content, which fed the AI, which in turn feeds your AI workflows. AI is still not trusted unless it's output is grounded with sources.
About 90% of my searches are straightforward enough that an LLM wouldn't bring any added value (and all of them happen straight from the browser address bar, either to Google or Wikipedia at a more or less 50:50 ratio). And for the rest, yeah, I just use Claude or whatever directly.
We all know Google search has been broken for a long, long time. SEO trash will fill up your first page with results from trash content generation sites that repeat the same thing, usually flat out wrong. Actual meaningful results are buried deep, if Google will even let out of the "In order to show you the most relevant results" hell hole.
My experience with AI searches is that they'll still be wrong a lot of times, but it will condense/flatten the content generating trash sites and give me alternatives from these deeper results. What I'm looking for is usally in there.
I use claude/gemini as my homepage now (I have to keep switching as these companies make "updates" that periodically render their models useless). Even if I want to search for simple things, I would rather have an LLM wade through the result and extract just the information I asked for. SEO, and now mountains of slop content have made this necessary. Only a matter of time before the SEO industry in large figures out how to game LLMs too, making them equally useless.
I already saw a article recently about how to set up a business domain which can reliably show up in a search result and dump overly positive reviews into anyone's context.
"I never want to have a conversation with a website that is geared towards advertising me products."
Since this is how Google makes all their money, why are they killing it off? Do they think people will eventually pay for LLM search? Do they plan to stuff the results with ads, not even sharing the ad revenue with the content sources?
Because they will still try to pump ads via AdSense. That's why I've created a platform called Zero Ad Network, where developers can monetize their sites by NOT showing ads and get paid by the platform subscribers.
I think LLMs are good answer engines, but terrible search engines. For example, if I just want the answer to "How do I foo this bar with a thingamajig", or "what kind of foo exists for bar", LLMs are 100% better because they'll give me an answer without trying to sell me their thing or pump me with ads. It also lets me go more in depth than the very surface level seo spam sites that appear when you do a search like this. On the other hand, search engines should be more like "<thing>s released 1908" or "<topic> and give you results talking about what you searched. If I search for C algorithm design, I don't want to learn what C is, what an algorithm is, and various other seo garbage. I want to learn about C algorithms and their design. If I search for influential books from 1908, I don't want "top 10 classics from the 1900s" or "hidden gems of 1908".
Currently, search engines are pretty bad at the second one because people try to use them as the first one
> On the other hand, search engines should be more like "<thing>s released 1908" or "<topic> and give you results talking about what you searched.
Is that useful enough to build a billion dollar advertising business around? My feeling now is not really.
Even for straight up searches, I find using an LLM to do a search and comb through the results is a better experience than Google is now for searching. If I'm specifically looking for esoteric web sites from 27 years ago on vintage computer hardware and software (thank god for Archive.org), Google is just ok for that.
Other way around. If I'm looking for the answer to a problem, I don't want the hallucination engine's half-remembered ramblings, I want the primary source that it's poorly attempting to reconstruct. But finding those primary sources has the potential to be easier, because LLMs effectively have built-in fuzzy search better than any classic search engine ever implemented.
In other words, I have no use for an LLM summarizer; I want an LLM librarian, working with me to say "beep-boop, here are some resources that seem relevant to your query, feel free to resume this session later if you'd like to further refine your search".
I find it extremely useful. So much so that I am annoyed when I have to use it in a handicapped fashion such as on the phone.
It makes me wonder why like 90% of the apps on my phone exist. I just want everything to be markdown files, skills, MCPs/API and then a nice TUI or voice to text.
> My Google search usage is easily down 50%+. I doubt I am unique here.
The question though: Why is that?
Is your Google search usage down because LLMs are "so much better"? Or because Google actively chose to destroy the quality of their search results to juice advertising revenue, and appears to continue to do so to juice AI adoption?
> and have them provide me links for source data.
And therein lies the answer: You don't care about the LLM, you're just using the LLM as a means to get the good links.
Objecting to this from the user end seems a bit like complaining the original Google was trying to be too magic when what you wanted was AltaVista. This has been the inevitable direction the whole time.
The real problem here is assuming this takes off what incentives will anyone have to provide the information to feed the beast?
Also, as a user, I want websites written by real humans. I do not want generic LLM output always has the same boring style. I like human writing, perfectly native English, broken second language English, I don't care. Human writing is unique and makes reading a pleasure.
Of course, even Google the search engine has gotten worse at surfacing interesting websites. First came the SEO spam websites, now the slop websites.
I used to use DuckDuckGo out of protest, despite it being inferior, but sometime in the last year (between general improvements and Google's rapid enshitification) it started outperforming Google for me.
Exactly, why should sites give free bandwidth to the google bots hammering them for nothing in return? Outside of retail, there's no point in allowing google to crawl if you're not getting anything in return.
>Objecting to this from the user end seems a bit like complaining the original Google was trying to be too magic when what you wanted was AltaVista. This has been the inevitable direction the whole time.
Did AltaVista get replaced by the owner of the site to justify a giant investment?
I strongly disagree. Altavista had exactly the same function as google, but with worse results. Both linked to original sources. Early google had a very good idea with pagerank and that payed off.
An llm rephrashing / regurgitating other websites is imo different, because you loose the direct connection to the original source. Even if llms give sources they also directly give you a plausible (but unreliable) answer to your question. They are right often enough that you get lulled in to the false sense of security of not needing to read the original sites. I'd much prefer them to just give a clean list of sources like early google, but then why would you need an llm.
It's a pity that probably the main reason you'll need an llm to find anything on the web is to weed out all the llm-generated low quality garbage.
And Altavista was slow! Google was so much faster, it felt way nicer to use. But LLMs are slow; forcing my google queries through an LLM is destroying that speed.
I don't personally feel surprised at all about this, but I am sad and angry. The open internet has been an incredible resource for billions of people and we're seeing Google actively destroy it for their own profit. That sucks.
The end of search traffic will kill all but the largest sites, and prevent countless new ones from being developed or getting traction. Given how global trends are going I expect the remaining sites to be increasingly monitored and censored/biased. I'm not looking forward to a world where social media means talking to some bots tuned specifically to addict you, and don't know too many people who are. Although big tech executives certainly seem to be in the latter group.
Finally google search result ridden with ads and useless results will be replaced by chatbot answers also ridden with ads, unnecessary commenatry from the bot and ads.
That's why Kagi is the only subscription I don't actively think about cancelling. For the love of god, keep me away from Google and all of THAT. If Kagi goes down the same path, I'll selfhost something or just return to monkey and use link indexes and the favorites list + the native search of websites.
It's actually not that hard now, once you get useful content. When I worked on Search (~2009ish), the primary index was called 4BBase, because it was the top 4 billion webpages (actually more like 5.5B during my time, but it had been around for a few years). A typical webpage is about 100K, and HTML compresses at 80-90% compression rates, so you're looking at 10-20K/page. The index would take about 50-100 TB.
Even after the recent AI run-up, disk prices are about $20/TB for a 20TB, so you can store this index on 3-5 hard disks that will cost you about $1200-2000. For self-hosted use you don't need to serve them in 50ms, so you don't need to put the whole thing in RAM like Google did, you can serve off of disk.
ElasticSearch uses basically the same data structures and gives you the same infrastructure that Google's ~late-00s search stack did, and is actually more advanced in some respects (like ad-hoc queries, debuggability, and updateability), so software isn't much of an issue.
The big part missing that can't really be replicated today is the huge web of authentic hyperlinks. The reason Google was so good at search was because many humans effectively "tagged" a given webpage with a series of short, descriptive words and phrases. When they went to search for a page, Google could mine this huge treasure trove of backlinks to identify exactly what the page was good for, even if those search terms never appeared on the page. SEO and link farms kinda killed this, as did the rise of social media walled gardens, and so the Google of 2009 basically wouldn't work today anyway. Maybe if you pulled old versions of Common Crawl or archive.org you could reconstruct it, but the relevant pages are often offline anyway today.
You can self-host Marginalia [1] or Hister [2], for example. Takes up some space, but it's totally doable. Your biggest problem (assuming you have disk space) will be crawling.
At least if we're speaking a more generalist web search it requires dedicated hardware, that's pretty costly. Marginalia's production server cost about $20k back when RAM and SSDs were cheap. It used to run on $5k of PC hardware before, but that was very limiting.
So no data center, but at the same time, not everyone has that sort of cash to throw around.
The boss man got a few of us Kagi gift-subscriptions/credits earlier this year, after we've been taking about wanting to try it. Before that I used Ecosia, which I also considered pretty good, but Kagi and everything else it just night and day.
I've been pretty sceptical about Kagi, feeling that it was a bit to expensive and perhaps just relying on other companies indexes to much and I spend to much time looking at how many searches I had left. After getting the subscription I just don't want to go back, the price is perfectly reasonable for the value. Being able to just search again and not sort through junk and spam and ads and just getting the pages I want and need is amazing.
Honestly it's a slightly weird feeling to look a the results from Kagi and notice it found exactly what you where looking for.
Once my gifted credits run out, that is going to be an easy renewal for me. I do not want to go back, even if I think Ecosia is a good option.
It's amazing how clear the manipulation and enshittification of Google's results are when you search the same thing with Kagi or even just another random search engine. Ecosia seems cool too, will keep an eye on it in case anything happens with Kagi.
Cool. I hope this blows up in their face and is reverted in a few months. I don't need my phone book index to suddenly not be an index and force me to use a call center instead.
I did not start using Google because the results were better.
I started using Google because the interface was far superior in the time before adblocking existed and after Flash existed.
Search results were better because they did not contain hidden paid results.
Search was measurably improved with the second generation of Wikipedia. Google did an excellent job understanding this and tended to just place the Wikipedia article at the top. Also helpful for Google was that Wikipedia's original search engine was useless, similar for YouTube whenever it came around.
Today, I use Google less than once per month. I'm not sure I've been there at all this year. Maybe at the end of last year I was using it and found nothing better than I found on other search engines.
What we need now is back to the roots - just a simple grep for the internet augmented by pagerank and eventually some sort of ai and harness to sort the rubish out. The AI companies have the data and the harnesses.
Google killed themselves when they made sure you can't search direct quotes or outside of your region. If I am going to sort trough vague crap - it is better AI to do it. And AI doesn't look at ads.
There is real opening for a company that just crawls and gives access to other companies to build on top of the collected stuff.
I don't trust facts from LLMs. When I am searching for something, I usually want to find primary sources. As soon as a number is involved, I do my best to not even look at the AI output.
Even though the result is often good and combines information from multiple sources, it can also get things wrong by combining information from different eras or just plain outdated advice. AFAICT, without primary sources, the result is for entertainment purposes only.
You can ask them to cite their sources. It's very good practice to do so, and to check those sources, because I've found that about 30-40% of the time their source doesn't support their answer at all.
If I'm going to an LLM (as with websearch before it), it's usually because I don't know the answer, don't have anyone close to me that knows the answer, and can't pay anyone (or don't know who to pay) for the answer. In other words, my failure rate without the LLM would be 100%.
Because being right 60% of the time with minimal work is still amazing, as long as one accounts for the failure rate correctly.
Say I want to look up some game from my childhood, which I barely remember any details for. Going to google and trying is likely going to be very difficult unless I happen to get lucky with some key element. But if an LLM can get it right even a minority of the time, it can lead to me quickly finding the game I'm looking for.
This does depend upon the ability to evaluate the answer, like checking against source or some other option where you know a good answer from bad. If you can't, then it does become much more dangerous. Perhaps part of the reason AI seem to empower experts more than novices in some domains?
I don't find it nearly that bad. If I really need factual information, it will generally go off and read the data from primary sources anyway. So unless it's really misunderstanding context, you're getting the data from the source.
It really matters the task. General knowledge from Wikipedia, great. Things more specific, with any thought needing to be used, or technical fields outside of software his numbers are pretty close to mine.
The problem too, is that we're all using different tools with different experiences -- there isn't one "AI". And if you're not paying for it, you're getting some real bad experience.
Because it finds the sources much quicker than I would have been able to on my own, and I can then synthesize them into data I know is correct, as correct as any human-generated data can be of course.
Because way more than three out of five Google results are SEO garbage or sponsored crap. The bar has been set extremely low by Google, a 60% validity rate sounds magical.
ChatGPT is the only bot that reliably cites sources (through Web search mode).
The other bots either make up links or simply don't provide any information that is distinguishable from the LLM predictive output.
Ironically Gemini is also very bad at this, while it should have been the best at Web search.
Gemini also does something very patchy, which is to provide "links" which are in fact GET queries into classic Google search. I'm guessing they did it this way because the links generated/hallucinated by the LLM were too unreliable.
Search engines don’t do that any more - they just give you a bunch of SEO spam sites, now mostly filled with plausible slop. Answers from search are _less_ reliable than answers from an LLM now.
I worry that the LLMs are just the equivalent of a ‘lagging indicator’ of web quality though - that they will also soon be overwhelmed with the sheer volume of plausible nonsense that is the web now, just like search engines are.
If the LLM is capable of providing good citations, then those citations could be returned in the same format as traditional search engines, not the new, LLM generated content first format. If they aren't capable of providing good citations, then the suggestion I was replying to is incorrect (and you'd have no way of knowing if they were right or not)
Sometimes I use chatgpt thinking mode for searches when I expect there will be a lot of noise. "What are some in-depth reviews for <some book I've heard of>"
Have you tried explicitly asking for links to primary sources?
Even before the AI era I slowly became less and less successful with google searches. Everything - non trivial / specific - that I looked for turned into a chore and I quickly gave up.
LLMs, that can supply valid links, give me a completely different variety of results. Either I am too dumb to search manually, too impatient or google search is just broken, but Gemini usually gives me something I can work with. I just wished I could blacklist some sources like medium.
Checkout Kagi. You can blacklist sites. You can also weight certain sites higher than others. I've been using it for almost a year at this point. When I'm forced to use Google at work, I am legitimately less effective at finding the information I need.
> When I am searching for something, I usually want to find primary sources.
And therein lies the rub; for years now Google's search results have returned useless SEO garbage. For now, it definitely seems like an LLM answer is better than what was being returned and I guess this is the reason why Google ripped it out.
While I can certainly see this upsetting some people, I'm not sure if this is necessarily "bad".
Web 2.0 was Yahoo Pipes, public APIs, IFTTT, etc. while this new "Web 3.0" acknowledges that those capabilities would rather be gatekept behind AI instead of entirely removed.
At the very least we do get some of that functionality back without resorting to scraping anymore and it's now accessible to the layperson. I would think this would nudge the layperson to demand more and inevitably want the actual data without the training wheels or sandboxes. Is that not a "good" thing?
Is the pushback against this out of genuine concern or just ideological?
I no longer use Google search for simple coding questions, even though it uses a bunch of Claude tokens to ask, for example, what's the null-safe operator in JavaScript vs ruby because it sends half my project with the question, I'll still just ask in my ide rather than a google search.
I caught myself yesterday starting to ask Claude in my ide what ship did grace and Rocky take back to Rocky's homeworld.
Does the math math on this to be "free" for a long period of time? Ads can only pay for so much and AI can really suck down the money.
Ads have been close enough to covering costs for conventional internet search that even though I'm clearly the product and not the customer the relationship has still generally worked. If AI makes the "searching" 50 times more expensive, though, that could shift the relationship pretty badly in a direction of "if you're not paying for this you're not getting honest results". Paying may not sufficient for honesty but it may be necessary.
Honest question. But anyone who wants to answer this and who looks at Google's income/profit/revenue and is bedazzled by the size, don't forget to divide out by the number of Google's customers and ponder what that means. The per-user numbers are the much more relevant numbers and much less likely to cause Large Number Syndrome.
To be completely honest, search is already so terrible it's difficult to imagine how could it get worse.
Sometimes I get SO questions from 13 years ago with a version of a library nobody uses anymore. If I search in my native language almost every result is a Reddit thread that was originally in English but was machine translated to Portuguese and Google is fine with that for some reason. Searching for images just gets you AI images.
If you need opinions on "what is the best X" you end up getting some content marketing from a website that offers some online service and probably has an .ai or .io domain.
No matter what you search you get an AI overview wasting space and slowly generating an answer that could be completely made up, just wasting your time in two ways at once.
Most long queries are simply completely ignored by Google. Almost every word ignored in order to show some sort of most popular result. You don't even know if there are no pages on the internet with what you searched for or if Google simply doesn't care to show any website that isn't sufficiently popular. In other words, never personal websites or blogs, only platforms and cloud services' content marketing blogs are allowed to appear in the results.
I've found myself several times asking Claude if there is "research" on a subject or another because I don't want to have to try to wade through the AI overview, sponsored results, SEO spam, reddit, repeated results on the second page, etc. just to find something that ressembles actual relevant information.
I think perplexity implements the same. Ive been using it as a default search for a month and actually still find myself explicitly using Google instead.
The ai generated summaries are slow, often miss the point of question and seem to be focused on user engagement, not in giving set of infos to sort out myself.
So there are two different types of queries, and when I want llm's answer, I ask chatgpt directly.
Often, if you visit a few of the top PageRank-ish search hits for a query, you can find where the "AI" answer was mostly plagiarized from...
(For example, a random Redditor once said something, and the AI repeats it confidently and authoritatively, as if it is universal truth widely accepted by experts and applicable to the query.)
Has the web been a meaningful experience since 2016? Before LLMs you might have visited 5 websites daily (besides utilities like banking / shopping /bills). Google concentrated on a handful of garbage-tier regime publishers with spammy ads. There were some holdouts like stack exchange and Wikipedia (at least attempting to produce quality content).
I think we can concede the WWW vision of distributed libertarian publishing has been dead for a long time. LLMs were just the final straw.
We ended up concentrating syndication on a few media companies like Google, Social Media companies.
Look at the profit margins of advertising companies vs producers and you’ll get an idea as to why.
One good thing about the (current iteration of) AI era is it’s getting people used to paying directly for data.
Yeah, of course i’d prefer information to be totally free. But if that isn’t possible, paying directly is far superior to paying for it via ad exposure.
The problem is that it amazingly easy to bias the weights and the actual size of the bias is tiny. So maintaining a per-user ad biased profile is cheap and profitable. I doubt that "paying directly" will keep out the ad men (after all, Cable TV cost money. Netflix too. Both have ads.)
Google search has been over for a few years already.
Nearly all other search engines give better results with less annoying ads at the top. First thing I do when installing a new browser is switch the default search engine to duckduckgo. Duckduckgo's results are less good than google used to be, bu way better than google currently is.
So to make this profitable they need ads revenue from it, right? Imagine for a moment the ways AI can manipulate responses and conversations for marketers, because I guarantee the marketers have already thought about it.
The fact that steering one of these things is trivial nowadays and the vectors are close-to-free-to-store (since you don't need anything large to influence the space, see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtbcExEKng) means that this is very likely already happening.
“AI safety alignment” implies political bias injection from the very start.
“We have to ensure models output text that is in line with the median politics of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors”, etc.
Not a stretch to go from there to “Of course the model should recommend Mountain Dew. It’s got electrolytes!”
The hardest decision a company, especially in tech, can make is to disrupt an immensely successul business of their own before their competitors can. Apple killed their biggest cash cow, the iPod, to push a smartphone. Netflix killed its entire business of DVD rentals in favor of streaming. Microsoft stopped selling software in boxes and pivoted to SaaS. Similar to all of these the business of typing words in a search box and getting 10 blue links was dead the moment ChatGPT got popular.
How does this work for Google? I read it costs them $0.001 to perform a search. No matter how efficient their inference chips are, the new cost basis has to be 10X or more. And the zero click Internet not only kills ad supported content sites, it also kills Google SERP ad revenues.
Lots of people talking about Google being strictly worse than a number of search engines (bing, duck, etc) not been my experience. Brave default search is awful. Duck was terrible last I used it. Google still great for me, but I have a decent amount of "privacy controls" implemented (DNS, vpn, browser extensions) and i basically dork most searches--average search looks more like a find invocation than English. In this last regard especially, Google is peerless, imo
Been a while since I looked around though. Is there an engine that supports all the operators that Google does and that provides results of better or equivalent quality?
It was only a matter of time. Watching how less technical people behave in the LLM era, I've noticed that most people no longer say "Google something", instead, they say "ask ChatGPT" or "ask chat". Many technical people have also stopped using Google for a lot of search queries and now just let an LLM find the answer.
I just want a relevant website ... no I don't want to use your agent. Just give me search results that are interesting to read, no AI slop, which teach me something new ... no I don't want to buy if I don't show this intent. Just serve the public interest and not your own financial interests.
Thank you.
How does a media company stay in business when there is no one visiting the site, and people are only getting the quality information from Google?
Advertising on the media site (assuming digital media, no physical media) is going to disappear because people probably won't be clicking through to read the source material that the Google AI answer relied on. No traffic, no advertisers, no money to produce the original journalism. That's going to impact the Google results eventually as these media outlets shut down to be replaced with...AI slop, maybe?
Is the subscriber model the answer? It could work for a niche subject or a single journalist with a following, and it wouldn't be sucked into Google results, either, if it was effectively gated/paywalled.
Anyways, I find that my $10/mo subscription to Kagi has been well worth not having to deal with Google's BS. (And they do offer AI if you want but they don't push it on you.)
So how does google now make money when it is just providing us with direct answers from ai, instead of showing us both paid for search results and directing us to sites which host targetted ads?
How does adsense work when there are no search results?
I expect a flavor of affiliate marketing where you can never trust if the LLM is giving you the best recommendations or the most highly bidded recommendations
But how is this sold to the customer? With adsense it is quantifiable, you set your max per click, per conversion etc, and can clearly see which you won and lost against competitors.
This becomes very murky when paying for 'ai to like your product' vs 'ai to really like your product'.
Same per click, it obviously includes links when looking for products, but impression could also be counted and arguably especially if present in the first few sentences it is a valuable impression.
But then the separation of ads from content is lost so it becomes useless as product search, so maybe it isn't that trivial indeed. But it's not like even 10% of users is gonna find some other "search" engine and switch.
edit: can't reply deeper and interesting question, I mean we all would love to have ability to search arbitrary strings and regexes through the web corpus, but currently when you type something you get that AI reply instantly for most queries, this makes me still use them, if you forgot some shortcut key or something it has currently unique value in terms of latency (even ignoring the fact that for most users you also use them by default by typing in the address bar)
I think also they have the issue that now the google search box is just an ai prompt, what differentiates it from any other ai prompt like gpt or claude?
Did they just devalue their unique search product by pushing it into another category already dominated by other big players?
I use Google daily, and yet I can't remember the last time I used their search box - all of my searching has been done through the browser URL bar for a long, long time. I wonder if similar changes are being applied to the Chrome URL bar?
I don't care. Aside from a single dormant GMail account I keep solely for "parental tech support", I de-Googled 5 years ago and strongly encourage everyone to do likewise.
Makes me sad. I recall the beginnings of Google, so hopeful so new.
Now they are a money printing corporate. I am sure there are still people there doing new and exciting things, but the Grey Suits have taken the reigns
They could have used AI to make that awesome simple sparse home page better. Fought off the SEO optimiser that made search so dire in the recent past
But no. They are doubling down on bling and crap. SEO is good for business.
This is great news. I remember Altavista, Yahoo and similar ones, they pioneered this type of home-page-is-all-you-need UI which is the perfect compromise of what product people at Google have come up with and what users want, at least according to their tests.
This means that, in a couple years, we might see a competitor that offers you quick, almost instant web search, with a minimal UI, possibly an algorithm that somehow surfaces the most relevant results based on how all websites point to each other naturally (like, a site that is referred to by 20 others should be above one with zero references).
If you'd like to switch from Google, I'll take the opportunity to let you know about Uruky [1], an ad-free and privacy-focused search engine, that's focused on a simpler experience than Kagi (no AI). Kind of like "old school" search. My wife and I launched it earlier this year, and it's been going really well so far.
Id you'd like to try it for free for a couple of days, reach out with your randomly-assigned account number and we'll top it up for you.
I wish they could remove the AI overview crap that's dysfunctional and kills the very spirit of a search engine's premise. You're not supposed to steal links from sites Google. That's a fucking dark pattern.
I'm old enough to remember when "Google" was something that ended conversations. People — myself included — would literally say "Google it," the facts would be located, and that was that. Now that Google wants to be the conversation, I'm worried there will no longer be a bias-free source of information for the masses.
This is all new, so I may be a bit hyperbolic, but the reason OpenAI introducing ads bothers me is the implicit (or even explicit) bias that can be smuggled into a chat in ways that simply aren't possible when you're just clicking through to an external source. There are all kinds of implications to Google no longer being that source of truth, even by default. Maybe this has quietly been the case for a long time, but this feels like the final move — pushing their ad bias (i.e., whoever paid the most) into a conversational system, where dark patterns are far easier to implement and much harder to detect.
One answer to this might be domain-specific agents — narrower, accountable, ideally something you (or your community) actually run. But even then it all falls back on trust: you being a good-faith actor, and others trusting that you are one. Which is to say, we're back to the same problem, just at a smaller scale.
>I'm worried there will no longer be a bias-free source of information for the masses.
There was never anything bias-free about google search. It "ranks" information based on all sorts of qualities. At our most generous we can call it somewhat of a "consensus" check. Historically it was a tool for quickly getting you in the vicinity of an answer that most would consider correct.
Remember "google bombing"? Hell SEO alone invalidates any assertion that google search is a valid source of truth and that's be going on for a long time.
With sponsored links and aggressive SEO, “Google it” has been falling apart as a source of facts for a long time.
There is an incredible gap in the search literacy between different users of Google. Some will accept what they find in the top links, no matter how dubious the source.
I haven't used google search as my default search engine in YEARS. DDG is good enough for 99% of my searches. Same with Google Chrome. Stop giving evil companies your traffic and attention.
I'm pretty sure I had something very similar A/Bed at me by Bing the other day.
You know what I really miss? Being able to type a literal string in quotes and get pages that had that actual string on them. That's what I really miss.
I think this is the second time in a week (the first being the "Googlebook") that Google's promotional announcement video showcasing UI is so full of special effects, dramatic pan/zooms, and woosh sounds, that I have no idea how the final-end product actually looks or works.
It looks like an output of one of those AI video editors that some (often vibecoded) startups use for their product launch videos. Just drop some assets in, and it spams witty taglines with dramatic transition effects.
So you can code in search now and create apps. No clue how that in depth works out. For them, the dream could be that everybody has their custom apps hosted by google.
It doesn't seem to be secure. If every google link is one step away from a prompt injection and leaking all your data, then they are worse then npm.
I wonder how many days it takes until they roll it back or put that stuff behind some extra clicks.
This is to Open Claw what Google home is to Home Assistant.
I prefer the Claw like I prefer Linux and FOSS in general.
Since day one Googs’ vision was to make the Star Trek computer. They’re really there now. But I don’t like their how. This computer serves them, not me. My mind-bicycle must serve me, my thoughts are my own. I hope my resistance is not futile.
The “magic” of the SERP is that it makes the organics product and the ads product reinforce each other: People come for the organics and don't have to pay. That brings eyeballs, which advertisers pay for.
If Google no longer sends users to websites for free on organics, the world will have to figure out some mechanism whereby Google pays site owners for putting the information on the web in the first place. Where will that money come from?
If it's ads, the AI experience is a “lies engine” where advertisers get to pick which lies the AI tells. Not sure what kinds of people would show up for that experience. Probably the same kind who watch home shopping TV. I would venture to guess that there will be a ceiling in the advertising value of that property. Or the AI interacts with people in good faith. But then, if I'm an advertiser, how do I get my lies into the world? “We will tell your lie, only if it's a truth” doesn't work because, as an advertiser, I understand that the truth about me already gets spoken, and I don't need to pay a dime for that.
You can run an argument that people can tell ads from organics on the current SERP, and you can calibrate how much of each there should be. But you can't really “calibrate” the amount and level of the lying in the AI to where it's just enough so that people will show up, but not so much that there's no value for advertisers. You can't have little boxes either, where the AI is like “having told you the truth, I want you to also pay attention to this lie that someone paid me to tell you: …”
Is Google really saying: “Hey, we're the lion's share of the advertising market right now. But, because we kind of like these newfangled AI things, we're going to just vacate that spot to whoever. Instead, we will turn ourselves into a pre-product-market-fit company. Maybe at some point over the next 10 years, we're going to be able to tell you how we might actually monetize ourselves. Stay toooooned.”
The reason why AI is a better experience than the web right now, is because we have pre-enshittification AI and post-enshittification web. What will the whole thing look like, after enshittification is through with AI?
Google is making the pivot. And they’ve got such a strong strategic position. Full-stack integration. They will survive and thrive in this new era. Search seems safe. Yet, other products are still vulnerable to encroachment.
>And I think we can throw out all the complaints of the past few years about how Google quality is lowering and it is hard to find anything on the site anymore, for those were the salad years.
>At least back in the day when sites copied answers from Stackoverflow or Lyrics from RapGenius and put them in their own site with scammy pitches to pay for the content you were going to get the correct answer in the end, but now you need a factology degree to figure out if something is bullshit or not.
The inability to do a proper search with “-x” x being a word you want excluded from the results but I can being able to have a convo about summary results is just mindblowing. I miss proper search. What’s everyone using for alternatives?
I've found Google AI Search to be good for really topical searches. And its conversational ability has noticeably improved over the last year. I can now have a (short) conversation where I reference past messages.
Bring me Google before the instant search nonsense where I could go into rabbit holes 100+ pages deep.
Now it can't find anything interesting. As a search is basically useless and it's more like Home pages used to be (that you would very much build yourself in a html editor and place your most often visited sites).
What scares me about this new AI mode thingy is that every answer sounds like a systematic literature review, but only for the results. For example, if I look for users feedback about a specific product, it says "People think that..., but also that...; It's important to notice that some people ..." where with 'people' it means just a random comment on a random website just because it thought it was a good contribution to the results. Sounds like it's giving a ground truth from "multiple" data, when instead it's just aggregating almost random stuff. In the context of a systematic review, the feature that I would love the most is augmenting my initial query, so that I can just get more results that I could find interesting. I am 100% sure they thought about this, but ignored it for the most profitable option.
Well, you'll be happy to know that most of American media is exactly the same way: 2 people on twitter will generate a "Americans find Widget X is bad"
What scares me is the rampant inaccuracy. In my experience, the AI responses are wrong about 65% of the time. I just did a search today about an error talking about a disconnected link between apps, and Google AI result summary told me that the error was related to my pulling a USB drive too quickly in windows. The ONLY word similar to my query and that AI response was the word "disconnect". Everything else was clearly about the SaaS apps.
I have people coming to me, asking me questions, then telling my Google told them something else, so now I have to waste time convincing them that it's wrong. Over the past 2 years AI has done nothing for me but complicate my work life.
And of course, this could be because the model is crap, but it could be because they want me to keep refining my query over and over for more ad views. Either way, it's a terrible experience.
> I have people coming to me, asking me questions, then telling my Google told them something else, so now I have to waste time convincing them that it's wrong.
It’s frustrating when people do that, with or without AI. If you think you know better, why did you ask?!
Depends on what you ask. It's pretty easy to get wrong information.
e.g. search for "how do you make money with options"
Google's AI says
"When you buy a Call, you are betting the stock price will go up. When you buy a Put, you are betting it will go down."
Wrong right off the bat, because it ingested a whole bunch of get-rich-quick bull on the internet. The correct version is that if you buy a call you are betting the stock price will go up more than the market expects it to.
This is the problem with teaching and learning. Everything is wrong to some extent. I used to be this way but I don't have a better approach.
Newtonian physics is actually wrong, the founding of any country will be wrong, biology is wrong, nutrition is wrong… what can we even teach? what should we teach in this lens? serious question.
It hallucinates greatly about many things when I ask about C++ things. Things that you can easily find the right answer in cppreference or by just inspecting headers in your own IDE.
> "People think that..., but also that...; It's important to notice that some people ..." where with 'people' it means just a random comment on a random website
Yup, I was looking up a pair of IEMS vs another pair of IEMs. It said option A is overall better, when really it was just reciting a single person's opinion. I've been aware it will summarize only a single source and present it as an aggregation of many opinions, but it stood out to me how matter-of-fact it was that the one was definitely better than the other. I simply wanted to find forum discussions on people's thought and wasn't influenced by this AI blurb, but I think seeing an answer at the very top state so matter-of-factly that one is definitely better and present it as though everyone thinks that will definitely influence a lot of people. It makes me wonder how "gameable" this will become...
> It makes me wonder how "gameable" this will become...
You better make sure your ad spend is high enough that your product's matter-of-fact result will be positive. That's a nice product you have there. It'd be a real shame if nobody knew about it.
The iem sub has a post with some recommendations at various price points. I’d probably start there, not sure your budget and I don’t know have the most experience with the super cheap ones: https://reddit.com/r/iems/comments/1la65kr/top_5_iems_in_eve...
I also encourage finding the right tips. Tips are cheap and finding proper fitting ones is important.
Oh who cares. We are barely scratching the surface of AI. You all make it sound like it’s been around for 30 years and it sucks. It will only get better. Got to stop throwing up imaginary walls like nothing will improve.
As a counterexample, I've been seeing more "safety rejections" from Claude. Unlike search, being unable to ask _anything_ about botulinum, or details about the recent Copy Fail vulnerability (without giving my fingerprints to Anthropic to become a "verified security researcher") we're only just beginning to see the ways LLM can be used to distort information and its availability.
What scares me are the basic usability fails it still has. Search for a few foreign language words and it will come back with paragraphs upon paragraphs of AI output in that foreign language despite me telling Google in 15 different ways that I don't speak it, nor anything else on the Google page being in that language. How are all their products always made by and for the most narrow minded people on this planet.
> when instead it's just aggregating almost random stuff
How do you know that?
Scraping websites is literally what Google does best, stringing together information in the pattern of "some people x, other people y" requires 0 AI and could have been done since forever. I find it implausible that otherwise obviously capable models would be reduced to do something akin to just that.
I get that they have to make changes to the google search box because so many people are just using ChatGPT/Cluade to answer questions instead of google.
However, I specifically use Google (or DDG) when the LLMs are failing me. When I want "research something on my own" because the LLM is giving me garbage, or untrustworthy information. If Google completely replaces their search box my Google usage will go down even further.
I don't plan to use Google's LLM when Cluade is just better. Now that Google's search features are gone (or going away) I no longer have any reason to turn to them at all
Agreed, but I think that might be our tech bubble. My non-tech family still just types searches in the URL bar of their browser first, and I'm sure others just have google as their browser homepage. I assume that's actually a pretty common use-case for most non-tech users.
Same, came to google after DDG failed to locate a string that I suspect would occur (error message on Factorio forums). Google then gives me some LLM hallucinations about what the error might indicate, also when you specifically don't click the "use AI mode" button (that the search button automatically turns into) but the "search" button. You don't get any search results whatsoever. After it started wasting energy on hallucinations, you're allowed to click "all", meaning "web search, please" (should be obvious to anyone)
Why in the world would it specifically do this for site:https://example.org "exact string" queries?! I know what I'm looking for and where it can be found!
It's like redirecting my phone call from ISP support to a librarian because maybe the library contains the answer to a dysfunctional SIM card they've sent me
For years already google has had integrations and more 'intelligent' responses for things like weather, shopping, answers to queries etc. This hardly changes any of that (most of the 'features' are inside AI Mode). For 'regular' uses this changes nothing. Avoid AI Mode most of the time. Double-check most automated overview options. And still not using any kind of chat interface when searching for sites, things, images, whatever. Hardly changes anything. And Google is still the destination for all lookups. With little to no reason to go looking for a different service especially not from any other AI-related firm.
I've been using google search, and all other products, less and less. i find a mixture of perplexity and chatgpt perform much better and find higher quality results faster.
the degoogling process will be a long haul but im determined to do it.
It's not clear to me from this announcement. The articles make it sound like all searches now go to ai mode and no more blue links.
But Google's description seems more minimal, like easier to get to ai mode, search box can expand intelligently based on input. Is there any clearer description of the magnitude of the change?
Google search itself is becoming useless. It tends to promote social media results even when scarcely relevant, and just can't find things like part numbers that even baidu can find on English language pages. The AI then summarises social media posts.
Google search box has basically become an AI aggregator that doesn't give anything back to those websites it scraps data from, and it'll result in the death of the internet as we came to know it
At this point, google might as well stop showing website links in search results. with AI Overviews, barely anyone’s clicking through it anymore
In the last 10 (maybe longer) years I've noticed I've changed how I am approaching these changes.
In the past, I excited. It was the first to sign up for all kinds of betas.
I don't know what triggered the my reasoning, but now whenever I see these upcoming announcements I don't think about how it's gonna be better, but how it is objectively gonna be worse. How much harder is it going to be for me to compare things.
How much more do I now need to go and explain people that the output is merely a mathematical average of what's out there, and if it's out there on the internet doesn't make it correct.
egorfine | 3 hours ago
Agentic capabilities and AI-powered interactive features in the search experience - most definitely will.
> You can still view traditional results only by selecting the “Web” tab in Google Search
I think we should still get a couple of years of life from Google. This is enough time to figure out what to do next.
embedding-shape | 3 hours ago
ivraatiems | 3 hours ago
munk-a | 3 hours ago
If their leadership has an itch they'll scratch it until it's raw.
saltcured | an hour ago
Did Meta patiently wait until exaggerated glass frames were viable in the market? Or did they get lucky?
Or did they have some Machiavellian plot to steer this fashion for years and pave the way for their product..? ;-)
munk-a | an hour ago
I think wearable tech is awesome and was interested in this (I was much more interested in the earlier pendant projectors though) but the fact that you're constantly reminding people they're being recorded without their consent is just a big issue. The meta glasses themselves might suffer a similar fate if hacks to disable the LED become commonplace. Much like Sony's (I think?) nightvision cameras if stuff like this gets abused by creeps it will isolate you to use it yourself even for perfectly reasonable intentions.
wslh | 2 hours ago
nostrademons | 2 hours ago
It's very much a Prisoner's Dilemma. Legacy search and the open Internet was an equilibrium that only existed while the majority of people co-operated. Once you allow an individual actor the ability to create large chunks of the Internet, it dies. Your only option is to be that individual actor.
coldpie | 3 hours ago
munk-a | 3 hours ago
Going all in like this carries a very real risk of burning users onto other platforms and the continued evolution of integrated search bars are already slicing off significant user segments.
threetonesun | 2 hours ago
TitaRusell | 2 hours ago
Never give the customers what they want give them what makes you money.
Calazon | 3 hours ago
Is the idea that by making the new AI chat UX the default, that's how they're forcing people into it and making them not able to search? Or is there something I'm missing?
embedding-shape | 2 hours ago
> Instead of returning a simple list of links, Google Search will drop users into AI-powered interactive experiences at times.
So basically you'd get redirect into a chatbot interface, rather than letting you browse search results as normal, "AI-powered interactive experience" tends to be euphemism for chatbot UIs, is my experience at least.
AlienRobot | 43 minutes ago
Yes, that is what every user ever wanted! A UI that just randomly changes!
Melatonic | 2 hours ago
billyp-rva | 2 hours ago
People who wanted to ask a specific question now won't have that option. Instead, they'll simply be shown whatever Google thinks is most relevant to them at that moment. The "Chat" UI we've grown so accustomed to is on its way out.
data-ottawa | an hour ago
It doesn’t really say in the article search is going away.
A lot of Google search is in the format of “company X”, then clicking the third link down (after two paid ads) to open company X’s website. (I have no idea how much this is, but it’s gotta be a lot)
That’s like free money. It doesn’t look like they’re getting rid of search, but expanding the AI/conversational features.
According to Kagi I search 11-50 times a day, about 600 searches per month. I do about 10-20 AI/assistant conversations per week, so maybe 2-3 a day, and usually when search fails or I can’t get the right query words in. I do this over my AI apps because the Kagi index is faster/better.
I can’t imagine Google would give up the bulk queries that pull in easy ad revenue. But if Google can push/upsell you into a really high value referral where they can start pulling a claim in your purchase, I could see them pushing to get into that.
rurp | an hour ago
lxgr | 7 minutes ago
ivraatiems | 3 hours ago
torben-friis | 3 hours ago
Supermancho | 3 hours ago
RyanOD | 2 hours ago
edelbitter | an hour ago
mrweasel | 2 hours ago
sphars | 2 hours ago
tedd4u | 2 hours ago
BrunoBernardino | 2 hours ago
[1]: https://alternativeto.net/software/google-search/?license=co...
Zigurd | 2 hours ago
cortesoft | 2 hours ago
Very few of the smaller search engines actually do their own indexing for exactly this reason.
edelbitter | an hour ago
nostrademons | 2 hours ago
So if another search engine does arise, it won't find anything useful, because the useful content on the web has been buried under slop, and largely removed. Your best bet today is a curated directory, sorta like the original Yahoo, where you allowlist the web to only real sites, download them, and make them searchable. I think this is actually Kagi's approach. But the open web as we knew and loved it is dead.
xerox13ster | 2 hours ago
When I use google, usually from my phone, I am reminded of why I don't use google on desktop.
With the announcement of this move by them, I just manually removed google as an address bar search engine option in all my browsers on desktop and mobile.
raincole | 2 hours ago
baggachipz | 2 hours ago
dgellow | an hour ago
raincole | 45 minutes ago
AndroTux | an hour ago
hootz | an hour ago
data-ottawa | an hour ago
There’s not much room to squeeze in when your competitors hold the keys to 15 million top websites.
kylehotchkiss | 27 minutes ago
Human produced content should be separated from sites primarily hosting slop. That seems solvable?
hyperhello | 3 hours ago
They are surely hearing themselves say the same things about how Google is “everything in one place” that every failed corporation parrots on their way out.
reed1234 | 3 hours ago
cynicalsecurity | 2 hours ago
They are making the same mistake as Yahoo did. Ironic.
caspper69 | 3 hours ago
simonw | 3 hours ago
ekidd | 2 hours ago
whazor | 2 hours ago
Andrex | 2 hours ago
Websites may go back to being simply labors of love.
victor106 | 2 hours ago
ChatGPT/Claude does this today. I barely click or care for the source when they already have me the info I wanted.
My speculation is all information worth anything is going to be behind some kind of wall.
nozzlegear | an hour ago
Maybe I'm just #builtdifferent, but I click these a lot. Especially if I'm trying to research or make a decision on something, I want the actual source and not the potentially-fudged summary.
victorbjorklund | an hour ago
runako | an hour ago
The situation may be even worse. Back in the labor of love era, at least webmasters could get feedback from readers. In the LLM era, readers may not even know that the site exists. Without feedback/community, the overall quality of those sites will decrease over time.
al_borland | an hour ago
Similarly, if I use Gemini uses a website for an answer, it should pay something to those sites for the information it gathered. Sites would need to sign up to earn via Google, and I'd imagine there would be a certain threshold to cross to make it worth cutting checks... but that would make all these AI search tools feel much less scummy while providing site owners an incentive to keep sharing information on the internet.
Where a model like this would get messy is with sites like reddit. It's a very popular source for AI search, but the value comes from the users, not the platform itself.
vb-8448 | 56 minutes ago
The problem with all this AI/llm stuff is that end users doesn't even know your tiny site with a lot of useful information exists at all.
Manuel_D | 54 minutes ago
sleepycat801 | 6 minutes ago
pflenker | 2 hours ago
This was an interesting dilemma because it was very clear that the money was way less than the loss in ad revenue due to traffic drop, but it was also clear that if we wouldn’t take the deal, a more desperate competitor would, which would result in the same traffic loss but without the extra google money. So the company took the deal.
History repeats itself here, with the difference that instead of paying for the data, the ai crawlers simply take it for free.
iamtedd | 2 hours ago
jonshariat | 2 hours ago
drcongo | an hour ago
vb-8448 | an hour ago
thelastgallon | an hour ago
burnte | 59 minutes ago
thedelanyo | 2 hours ago
Mention
lacewing | an hour ago
swarnie | 2 hours ago
Mechanisms might exist to make you think you have one, the same way copywrite should prevent millions of books being gobbled up by TheZuck but ultimately do you really have a choice?
Rules and laws don't exists for you.
alt227 | 2 hours ago
rolph | 2 hours ago
this has been done before, quite often, but toward ends morally askew.
coldpie | 2 hours ago
As far as I know, you don't have a choice. They have no obligation to respect your wishes, and LLMs are legally allowed to scrape & republish your content.
margalabargala | 2 hours ago
I have no obligation to not send all scraper-looking traffic to a black hole full of zip bombs.
charcircuit | an hour ago
vntok | an hour ago
ChoGGi | 16 minutes ago
Disclaimer: his website is for hosting malware for "testing" purposes. Testing how well AI can't deal with it.
oh_no | an hour ago
PunchyHamster | an hour ago
tedd4u | 2 hours ago
wvenable | 2 hours ago
AI summarization has already causes issues for sites like rtings where people are no longer visiting the site but still making use of the data presented there. Leading to rtings not getting enough traffic to continue to post their data.
It is an existential crisis for websites and when they go away it'll be an existential crisis for AI.
elevation | 2 hours ago
What about the stories of marketing managers who learned months after the fact that their credit card had expired and their google ad spend had ceased with no affect on traffic? Google isn't always an effective promotional vehicle.
maccard | 2 hours ago
loloquwowndueo | an hour ago
elictronic | an hour ago
vntok | an hour ago
monooso | 2 hours ago
kxrm | an hour ago
I may be strange and unusual, but I just have never cared about my Google ranking. I know this makes me out of the ordinary among site owners but I have been humming along fine.
This certainly will disrupt traffic but for some of my sites I honestly think this is a good thing. I want you to want to be there, not just stumble upon my site because you happen to hit the right search keyword. Plus if it gets bad, this does create a new opportunity for others with cross linking and search.
prinny_ | an hour ago
kxrm | 50 minutes ago
My target market is more technical then that so likely, nothing would change for me. Again, I recognize the impact of Google's dominance for some, but if the "attestation" isn't helpful and only hinders using services that people have come to rely on, there will be push back.
I also have been advocating for years for everyone in my circle to avoid using Chrome. A homogenized browser market is a risk, and Chrome is the new IE. I hope you are also a part of the effort to advocate for browser diversity.
carlosjobim | an hour ago
Do you depend on site visitors for making a living? That's what this is about.
kxrm | 58 minutes ago
I know that sites relying on ad income will and are being hurt tremendously by this effort on Google's part. However, if you are in the startup space and make money on services you offer, search should be one of several strategies you are deploying for user growth.
deaton | 2 hours ago
loloquwowndueo | an hour ago
pokot0 | an hour ago
this kills the entire internet vibe of the 90s, early 2k
nine_k | 48 minutes ago
FTFY: "couple of decades since has become". The vibes of passion-driven 1990s started to be overwhelmed by the din of money right when the Internet has become a major commerce venue, some time in early 2000s.
franze | an hour ago
UltraSane | an hour ago
prinny_ | an hour ago
jefftk | an hour ago
(It doesn't work for ad-funded writing, but while I have substantial sympathy there this has historically been an unpopular argument on HN)
kennywinker | an hour ago
jefftk | an hour ago
arcatech | 25 minutes ago
kennywinker | 25 minutes ago
victorbjorklund | an hour ago
nine_k | 54 minutes ago
If your site is about your product, Google won't be able to serve the sign-up page from AI; the traffic would come your way. Same for a site that sell something: the traffic you're interested in would arrive at your checkout page.
Paid-content sites and ad-supported sites are screwed though, on top of their being screwed by archive.is and ad blockers.
afavour | 39 minutes ago
esseph | 41 minutes ago
Site traffic
SoftTalker | 2 hours ago
Websites will die on the vine if LLMs intermediate all the content.
The "website" of the future will be an API optimized for LLM crawlers, serving plain-text content that no end-user will ever view directly. The SEO game will change to LLMAO.
LetsGetTechnicl | 2 hours ago
ben_w | 2 hours ago
The current zeitgeist of them will, but I think not all.
My first website (GeoCities) was either before Google existed or very close to it. Connected to people via WebRings and directory listings. More recently, RSS feeds.
SoftTalker | 2 hours ago
mrec | 2 hours ago
That sounds like an unalloyed plus. The perverse incentives caused by advertising have been the biggest driver of the web's decline, IMO.
BrunoBernardino | 2 hours ago
[1]: https://alternativeto.net/software/google-search/?license=fr...
[2]: https://alternativeto.net/software/google-search/?license=co...
lyu07282 | an hour ago
https://www.epceurope.eu/post/epc-welcomes-landmark-cjeu-rul...
carlosjobim | an hour ago
abirch | 2 hours ago
latexr | 44 minutes ago
On the contrary, it will flourish. It’s just that it’ll shift to whatever can trick LLMs into recommending your product.
https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260218-i-hacked-chatgpt...
thisisit | an hour ago
This will happen especially with things like conspiracy theories because the choice might be to pollute the output or share the general consensus. Like searches for Apollo landing conspiracy theories can either chose to present “alternate facts” so that people can “do their own research” and conclude it is fake or LLM auto corrects to “Apollo landing happened”.
SoftTalker | 18 minutes ago
CSMastermind | an hour ago
winterschon | 39 minutes ago
> Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago.
His hot takes are best ignored, is just convenient click bait for their entire negativity angle.
jreed91 | 33 minutes ago
Havoc | 3 hours ago
After I got tired of perplexity's nonsense I realized the workspace account (which I have for custom email domain) came with fancy gemini pro chat.
Was a fucking ripoff for the domain thing...but domain plus premium chat clearly marked as "we won't train on your data"...the math starts mathing better again.
zarzavat | 3 hours ago
I'm aware that most people still use it, but it's nothing like the glory days when Google was far ahead of the pack.
RyanOD | 2 hours ago
andrewstuart | 3 hours ago
whalesalad | 3 hours ago
thevillagechief | 3 hours ago
CooCooCaCha | 3 hours ago
adamiscool8 | 3 hours ago
munk-a | 2 hours ago
CooCooCaCha | 2 hours ago
Bolwin | 2 hours ago
kakapo5672 | 2 hours ago
bigstrat2003 | 2 hours ago
LogicFailsMe | 3 hours ago
aquir | 3 hours ago
loehnsberg | 2 hours ago
[1] https://github.com/kagisearch/kagimcp
Hackbraten | 2 hours ago
If Google Search changes, then Kagi's search will be impacted directly.
BrunoBernardino | 2 hours ago
Hackbraten | an hour ago
> This is not a competitive market. It is a monopoly with a distant second place.
> The search index is irreplaceable infrastructure. Building a comparable one from scratch is like building a parallel national railroad. Microsoft spent roughly $100 billion over 20 years on Bing and still holds single-digit share. If Microsoft cannot close the gap, no startup can do it alone.
[0]: https://blog.kagi.com/waiting-dawn-search
AlienRobot | 21 minutes ago
Nobody said you have to index the entire web.
The web would probably be a lot healthier if we had several small search engines that focused on niches rather than 5 failed search engines that tried to index everything that was ever written and then ended up paying Bing.
GaryBluto | an hour ago
* Kagi seems to just scrape and provide a mix of other search engine's results, meaning it's really just a metasearch engine.
zeafoamrun | an hour ago
dgellow | an hour ago
pclowes | 3 hours ago
While there are times where I want pure search (Kagi, Old Google) I mostly use LLMs to search now and have them provide me links for source data.
When I do use LLMs as a search engine I always want it integrated into my AI workflows with access to tools and scripts etc. I never want to have a conversation with a website that is geared towards advertising me products.
ivraatiems | 3 hours ago
deepfriedbits | 2 hours ago
ivraatiems | 2 hours ago
Corence | 2 hours ago
embedding-shape | 2 hours ago
bdangubic | 2 hours ago
gnatolf | 2 hours ago
embedding-shape | 2 hours ago
ignu | 2 hours ago
wvenable | 2 hours ago
BobbyTables2 | 2 hours ago
I was once very good at advanced Google search queries but they seem to no longer respect such queries - either showing irrelevant results or none at all (that should exist).
I don’t love LLMs, but they seem to not make up stuff very often these days and usually cite links to what they summarized. Sometimes the tone of the summary is slightly wrong “algorithm X was designed for Y” (when I know it wasn’t) but it’s otherwise very close to the mark.
What does amaze me, is the LLM seems to “understand” my question with very little context — I would have to give a human many more details about goals/intent.
I know damn LLMs are not capable of thought and are just a glorified search engine, but they do it well. Perhaps all my education made me little more…
I used to mock Sci-Fi movies where characters lazily dictated questions to the computer and it gave high quality answers.
We’re living in that world now.
jolt42 | 2 hours ago
sonofhans | 2 hours ago
travisgriggs | 2 hours ago
terribleperson | 2 hours ago
The vast majority of original content is now in one or another social network or on discord. News articles are an exception, though the news has its own problems. Some wikis still exist and are actively maintained, of course, but not a ton. If it's a topic that's academically studied you might find information in papers, but those have poor web visibility and are better located with specialty tools. LLMs seem to be quite good at locating papers, though.
ndiddy | an hour ago
ahmadyan | 58 minutes ago
https://www.google.com/search?&udm=web&q=hackernews
bigstrat2003 | an hour ago
Ah, but they are! Kagi is light years better than Google, and is a worthy replacement. You do have to pay for it, but I get my money's worth.
snailmailman | 2 hours ago
I've been trying to use LLMs for things and it makes mistakes all the time. Just this week i had multiple instances of various LLMs basically saying "just run the software with --flag-that-fixes-your-problem" or "edit the config and add solve-your-issue=true" hallucinating non-existant options. Even if i manually link the relevant documentation pages it will still just make basic mistakes. and if im having to read the documentation myself anyway to fix the AI's mistakes, why is the AI even in the loop.
its infecting search too, because blogspam/slop articles are managing to make their way into search results by just making up untrue information, claiming software can do things it cant, or has options that don't exist.
wvenable | 2 hours ago
vor_ | an hour ago
It's baffling that people have become so devoted to them as a source of information given how inaccurate they are. I've learned not to trust anything they say, ever, especially when it comes to technical subjects.
jerf | 2 hours ago
Though I will say I get much better results from the LLMs I pay for than the free ones with Google or DuckDuckGo, which seem to be way way way more prone to just make crap up based on your search and cite web pages that, when followed, don't have the claim being made in the AI search results at all. By contrast every "source" link I've followed in the for-money AIs has 100% backed what the AI said it backed. Don't judge by the free AIs the search engines put out, those things are probably starved of resources and are nearly useless.
(Which I did not intend as a commentary on Google's plans here, but it is a data point of interest... that pressure to cut costs on the "free" services is quite directly at odds with providing quality AI services for the forseeable future.)
chrismorgan | 2 hours ago
And I’ve tried Google’s once or twice and seen it used once or twice, and used ChatGPT exactly once, last week, and I was not at all impressed by any of them. Their output, for what I’ve personally seen, has been nonsense, obvious, or unverifiable.
lxgr | 9 minutes ago
Same here. The free version probably gets orders of magnitude less of a compute budget, though, so I am not really surprised.
What I find really surprising though is how many people still have only ever used the free version of any LLM, even those that are heavy users and could easily afford it. It seems like a pretty big and basic product marketing mistake to me to limit capabilities instead of usage time in the free version! How are people supposed to learn what they'd get if they were to pay?
cyanydeez | 2 hours ago
quaintdev | 2 hours ago
You can't do something like this with search.
ignu | 2 hours ago
An increasing number of studies are indicating a reliance on "AI" leads to deleterious cognitive effects. I felt this acutely myself.
I've noticed a significant boost to my recall since shunning "AI" as much as possible.
VLM | 2 hours ago
Using google search, will return roughly infinite recipe sites. The sites were generated to spam AI generated recipes surrounded by advertisements. None of them are really any good because they were generated by a script and not looked at by a human until I come along and click. The standard is for all recipes to have at least 10-15 screenfulls of vertical spam wrapped by ads for recipe pages. The internet, at least using Search, is now useless for food recipes. I would have better, faster luck driving to the public library and looking in a physical cookbook; at least those recipes were probably tested at least once by humans unlike the advertising spam sites. Nobody has 45 minutes to watch 44 minutes of filler material surrounded by ads on Youtube either. If you want to cook food, the internet is near dead at this time, unfortunately.
AI search will plagiarize the "Original Nestle Toll House" recipe from the back of every bag of chocolate chips ever made. Its a good recipe and I've baked them many times over the decades.
I wish the internet were more useful, but the people in charge of it don't want it to be useful; here have some ragebait and doomscroll while watching the ads.
m-schuetz | 2 hours ago
adamtaylor_13 | 2 hours ago
I don't comprehend how the average person gets any useful information out of Google.
tencentshill | 28 minutes ago
cortesoft | 2 hours ago
But I still want to also be able to do my normal, old school searching.
zemo | 2 hours ago
yeah man good thing LLMs are structurally incapable of being incentivized to sell you a product or render referral links, this is surely future-proof
NietzscheanNull | 2 hours ago
Yeah, they probably aren't doing (most of) these now, but it doesn't take much mental energy to extrapolate once you factor nearly every other tech company's ethical trajectory and the current geopolitical environment. Substituting classic search entirely with LLMs is not a savvy move.
pclowes | 2 hours ago
NietzscheanNull | 2 hours ago
A search engine could certainly tamper with which of these sources they surface/rank higher (which I suspect happening more often of late), but they're still obliged by their nature to branch out and seek information from the broader world.
LLMs, on the other hand, are self-contained opaque monoliths that can be conditioned to deceive or obfuscate with devious cleverness, and all control over their behaviors is entirely concentrated in the hands of whatever corporation trains them.
pclowes | an hour ago
pclowes | 2 hours ago
As soon as one gets annoying, expensive, advertiser heavy etc. you just rip it out and replace it with the other one. AFAICT there is zero lock-in or moat. I often am able to switch models in one click or command. This is why all the LLM providers are desperate for a product layer/comprehensive tool set.
Sure maybe they all end up that way, but there’s plenty of reasons corporate customers will want private LLM usage that is not skewed towards advertising. I am happy to pay for that.
Also, open source models are a bulwark against another search style ad Monopoly.
zkmon | 2 hours ago
The advertisements fed the content, which fed the AI, which in turn feeds your AI workflows. AI is still not trusted unless it's output is grounded with sources.
Sharlin | 2 hours ago
snapetom | 2 hours ago
My experience with AI searches is that they'll still be wrong a lot of times, but it will condense/flatten the content generating trash sites and give me alternatives from these deeper results. What I'm looking for is usally in there.
skiing_crawling | 2 hours ago
I already saw a article recently about how to set up a business domain which can reliably show up in a search result and dump overly positive reviews into anyone's context.
SoftTalker | 2 hours ago
Since this is how Google makes all their money, why are they killing it off? Do they think people will eventually pay for LLM search? Do they plan to stuff the results with ads, not even sharing the ad revenue with the content sources?
luggage_bazooka | an hour ago
mghackerlady | 2 hours ago
Currently, search engines are pretty bad at the second one because people try to use them as the first one
kibwen | 2 hours ago
Surely we all understand that any commercial model is going to inevitably metastasize into this.
wvenable | 2 hours ago
Is that useful enough to build a billion dollar advertising business around? My feeling now is not really.
Even for straight up searches, I find using an LLM to do a search and comb through the results is a better experience than Google is now for searching. If I'm specifically looking for esoteric web sites from 27 years ago on vintage computer hardware and software (thank god for Archive.org), Google is just ok for that.
kibwen | an hour ago
In other words, I have no use for an LLM summarizer; I want an LLM librarian, working with me to say "beep-boop, here are some resources that seem relevant to your query, feel free to resume this session later if you'd like to further refine your search".
estebank | 20 minutes ago
Yet.
thefourthchime | an hour ago
I've barely used Google for over 2 years.
I barely driven myself in a year.
I haven't written code in 6 months.
fckgw | an hour ago
throwaway98797 | an hour ago
demorro | 20 minutes ago
Debate over, all sides have been expressed.
pclowes | an hour ago
It makes me wonder why like 90% of the apps on my phone exist. I just want everything to be markdown files, skills, MCPs/API and then a nice TUI or voice to text.
skeptic_ai | 42 minutes ago
SlinkyOnStairs | 6 minutes ago
The question though: Why is that?
Is your Google search usage down because LLMs are "so much better"? Or because Google actively chose to destroy the quality of their search results to juice advertising revenue, and appears to continue to do so to juice AI adoption?
> and have them provide me links for source data.
And therein lies the answer: You don't care about the LLM, you're just using the LLM as a means to get the good links.
fidotron | 3 hours ago
The real problem here is assuming this takes off what incentives will anyone have to provide the information to feed the beast?
microtonal | 2 hours ago
Of course, even Google the search engine has gotten worse at surfacing interesting websites. First came the SEO spam websites, now the slop websites.
I'm glad that alternatives like Kagi exist.
ignu | 2 hours ago
dawnerd | 2 hours ago
torben-friis | 2 hours ago
Did AltaVista get replaced by the owner of the site to justify a giant investment?
skywhopper | 2 hours ago
Now, the spam is back and it’s coming from Google itself.
maybewhenthesun | 2 hours ago
An llm rephrashing / regurgitating other websites is imo different, because you loose the direct connection to the original source. Even if llms give sources they also directly give you a plausible (but unreliable) answer to your question. They are right often enough that you get lulled in to the false sense of security of not needing to read the original sites. I'd much prefer them to just give a clean list of sources like early google, but then why would you need an llm.
It's a pity that probably the main reason you'll need an llm to find anything on the web is to weed out all the llm-generated low quality garbage.
cibyr | 2 hours ago
rurp | an hour ago
The end of search traffic will kill all but the largest sites, and prevent countless new ones from being developed or getting traction. Given how global trends are going I expect the remaining sites to be increasingly monitored and censored/biased. I'm not looking forward to a world where social media means talking to some bots tuned specifically to addict you, and don't know too many people who are. Although big tech executives certainly seem to be in the latter group.
runlevel1 | 15 minutes ago
hsuduebc2 | 3 hours ago
hootz | 3 hours ago
charles_f | 2 hours ago
hootz | 2 hours ago
nostrademons | 2 hours ago
Even after the recent AI run-up, disk prices are about $20/TB for a 20TB, so you can store this index on 3-5 hard disks that will cost you about $1200-2000. For self-hosted use you don't need to serve them in 50ms, so you don't need to put the whole thing in RAM like Google did, you can serve off of disk.
ElasticSearch uses basically the same data structures and gives you the same infrastructure that Google's ~late-00s search stack did, and is actually more advanced in some respects (like ad-hoc queries, debuggability, and updateability), so software isn't much of an issue.
The big part missing that can't really be replicated today is the huge web of authentic hyperlinks. The reason Google was so good at search was because many humans effectively "tagged" a given webpage with a series of short, descriptive words and phrases. When they went to search for a page, Google could mine this huge treasure trove of backlinks to identify exactly what the page was good for, even if those search terms never appeared on the page. SEO and link farms kinda killed this, as did the rise of social media walled gardens, and so the Google of 2009 basically wouldn't work today anyway. Maybe if you pulled old versions of Common Crawl or archive.org you could reconstruct it, but the relevant pages are often offline anyway today.
BrunoBernardino | 2 hours ago
[1] : https://github.com/MarginaliaSearch/MarginaliaSearch
[2] : https://github.com/asciimoo/hister
marginalia_nu | 18 minutes ago
At least if we're speaking a more generalist web search it requires dedicated hardware, that's pretty costly. Marginalia's production server cost about $20k back when RAM and SSDs were cheap. It used to run on $5k of PC hardware before, but that was very limiting.
So no data center, but at the same time, not everyone has that sort of cash to throw around.
mrweasel | 2 hours ago
I've been pretty sceptical about Kagi, feeling that it was a bit to expensive and perhaps just relying on other companies indexes to much and I spend to much time looking at how many searches I had left. After getting the subscription I just don't want to go back, the price is perfectly reasonable for the value. Being able to just search again and not sort through junk and spam and ads and just getting the pages I want and need is amazing.
Honestly it's a slightly weird feeling to look a the results from Kagi and notice it found exactly what you where looking for.
Once my gifted credits run out, that is going to be an easy renewal for me. I do not want to go back, even if I think Ecosia is a good option.
hootz | 2 hours ago
ulrashida | 3 hours ago
paulnpace | 3 hours ago
I started using Google because the interface was far superior in the time before adblocking existed and after Flash existed.
Search results were better because they did not contain hidden paid results.
Search was measurably improved with the second generation of Wikipedia. Google did an excellent job understanding this and tended to just place the Wikipedia article at the top. Also helpful for Google was that Wikipedia's original search engine was useless, similar for YouTube whenever it came around.
Today, I use Google less than once per month. I'm not sure I've been there at all this year. Maybe at the end of last year I was using it and found nothing better than I found on other search engines.
ReptileMan | 2 hours ago
What we need now is back to the roots - just a simple grep for the internet augmented by pagerank and eventually some sort of ai and harness to sort the rubish out. The AI companies have the data and the harnesses.
Google killed themselves when they made sure you can't search direct quotes or outside of your region. If I am going to sort trough vague crap - it is better AI to do it. And AI doesn't look at ads.
There is real opening for a company that just crawls and gives access to other companies to build on top of the collected stuff.
imoverclocked | 2 hours ago
Even though the result is often good and combines information from multiple sources, it can also get things wrong by combining information from different eras or just plain outdated advice. AFAICT, without primary sources, the result is for entertainment purposes only.
nostrademons | 2 hours ago
dbbk | 2 hours ago
skywhopper | 2 hours ago
bsimpson | 2 hours ago
Type your question in Android/Chrome search bar:
"Is …?"
AI Overview on the search results page:
"No…"
Click through to the AI mode tab/"Dive deeper with AI" CTA:
"Yes…"
burnte | 58 minutes ago
Sorry, no, I hate that.
nilamo | 2 hours ago
nostrademons | 2 hours ago
tempest_ | 58 minutes ago
Sometimes that is fine, sometimes it is not
SkyBelow | 2 hours ago
Say I want to look up some game from my childhood, which I barely remember any details for. Going to google and trying is likely going to be very difficult unless I happen to get lucky with some key element. But if an LLM can get it right even a minority of the time, it can lead to me quickly finding the game I'm looking for.
This does depend upon the ability to evaluate the answer, like checking against source or some other option where you know a good answer from bad. If you can't, then it does become much more dangerous. Perhaps part of the reason AI seem to empower experts more than novices in some domains?
wvenable | 2 hours ago
elictronic | an hour ago
wvenable | an hour ago
javawizard | an hour ago
johnfn | an hour ago
luma | an hour ago
thfuran | 2 hours ago
masfuerte | 2 hours ago
puttycat | 2 hours ago
The other bots either make up links or simply don't provide any information that is distinguishable from the LLM predictive output.
Ironically Gemini is also very bad at this, while it should have been the best at Web search.
Gemini also does something very patchy, which is to provide "links" which are in fact GET queries into classic Google search. I'm guessing they did it this way because the links generated/hallucinated by the LLM were too unreliable.
lunar_mycroft | 2 hours ago
jrmg | 2 hours ago
I worry that the LLMs are just the equivalent of a ‘lagging indicator’ of web quality though - that they will also soon be overwhelmed with the sheer volume of plausible nonsense that is the web now, just like search engines are.
Model collapse everywhere.
lunar_mycroft | an hour ago
aucisson_masque | 14 minutes ago
I know that deepseek has links for every chain it makes where you can read the source and it's actually a good thing to check on that.
skybrian | 2 hours ago
Have you tried explicitly asking for links to primary sources?
Yokohiii | an hour ago
LLMs, that can supply valid links, give me a completely different variety of results. Either I am too dumb to search manually, too impatient or google search is just broken, but Gemini usually gives me something I can work with. I just wished I could blacklist some sources like medium.
baaron | an hour ago
ori_b | an hour ago
esseph | 35 minutes ago
This will remove any results from there for you.
Alternatively, site:news.ycombinator.com would search this website explicitly.
binkHN | an hour ago
And therein lies the rub; for years now Google's search results have returned useless SEO garbage. For now, it definitely seems like an LLM answer is better than what was being returned and I guess this is the reason why Google ripped it out.
HerbManic | 32 minutes ago
I have seen it hallucinate things confidently but that is usually when it has no direct sources to pin down the output.
sublinear | 2 hours ago
Web 2.0 was Yahoo Pipes, public APIs, IFTTT, etc. while this new "Web 3.0" acknowledges that those capabilities would rather be gatekept behind AI instead of entirely removed.
At the very least we do get some of that functionality back without resorting to scraping anymore and it's now accessible to the layperson. I would think this would nudge the layperson to demand more and inevitably want the actual data without the training wheels or sandboxes. Is that not a "good" thing?
Is the pushback against this out of genuine concern or just ideological?
alt227 | 2 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3
cesarb | 2 hours ago
alt227 | an hour ago
zkmon | 2 hours ago
Time to switch to old style search engines which still return the 10 blue links, with an AI option.
cynicalsecurity | 2 hours ago
"Did you mean?" + excluded word was a pretty clear indication they stopped caring to provide any meaningful search whatsoever.
einrealist | 2 hours ago
notatoad | 2 hours ago
have i been A/B tested into something, or has this been live for months? this doens't seem new.
hnsr | 2 hours ago
pests | 2 hours ago
comrade1234 | 2 hours ago
I caught myself yesterday starting to ask Claude in my ide what ship did grace and Rocky take back to Rocky's homeworld.
tedd4u | 2 hours ago
jerf | 2 hours ago
Ads have been close enough to covering costs for conventional internet search that even though I'm clearly the product and not the customer the relationship has still generally worked. If AI makes the "searching" 50 times more expensive, though, that could shift the relationship pretty badly in a direction of "if you're not paying for this you're not getting honest results". Paying may not sufficient for honesty but it may be necessary.
Honest question. But anyone who wants to answer this and who looks at Google's income/profit/revenue and is bedazzled by the size, don't forget to divide out by the number of Google's customers and ponder what that means. The per-user numbers are the much more relevant numbers and much less likely to cause Large Number Syndrome.
AlienRobot | 29 minutes ago
Sometimes I get SO questions from 13 years ago with a version of a library nobody uses anymore. If I search in my native language almost every result is a Reddit thread that was originally in English but was machine translated to Portuguese and Google is fine with that for some reason. Searching for images just gets you AI images.
If you need opinions on "what is the best X" you end up getting some content marketing from a website that offers some online service and probably has an .ai or .io domain.
No matter what you search you get an AI overview wasting space and slowly generating an answer that could be completely made up, just wasting your time in two ways at once.
Most long queries are simply completely ignored by Google. Almost every word ignored in order to show some sort of most popular result. You don't even know if there are no pages on the internet with what you searched for or if Google simply doesn't care to show any website that isn't sufficiently popular. In other words, never personal websites or blogs, only platforms and cloud services' content marketing blogs are allowed to appear in the results.
I've found myself several times asking Claude if there is "research" on a subject or another because I don't want to have to try to wade through the AI overview, sponsored results, SEO spam, reddit, repeated results on the second page, etc. just to find something that ressembles actual relevant information.
oidar | 2 hours ago
tdiff | 2 hours ago
The ai generated summaries are slow, often miss the point of question and seem to be focused on user engagement, not in giving set of infos to sort out myself.
So there are two different types of queries, and when I want llm's answer, I ask chatgpt directly.
victorkulla | 2 hours ago
Melatonic | 2 hours ago
KevinMS | 2 hours ago
marcosdumay | 2 hours ago
CrzyLngPwd | 2 hours ago
We'll see if it works. I use chatgpt for complex queries, and for throaway ones I use just don't log in to it.
I wouldn't use google for the same queries, since I normally use google to find specific things, not for a chatbot.
adam12 | 2 hours ago
bdangubic | 2 hours ago
neilv | 2 hours ago
(For example, a random Redditor once said something, and the AI repeats it confidently and authoritatively, as if it is universal truth widely accepted by experts and applicable to the query.)
tonymet | 2 hours ago
I think we can concede the WWW vision of distributed libertarian publishing has been dead for a long time. LLMs were just the final straw.
We ended up concentrating syndication on a few media companies like Google, Social Media companies.
Look at the profit margins of advertising companies vs producers and you’ll get an idea as to why.
theopsimist | 2 hours ago
svieira | 2 hours ago
expedition32 | 2 hours ago
But at least I've experienced the golden age. I feel bad for all the kids who will never know what once was.
maybewhenthesun | 2 hours ago
Nearly all other search engines give better results with less annoying ads at the top. First thing I do when installing a new browser is switch the default search engine to duckduckgo. Duckduckgo's results are less good than google used to be, bu way better than google currently is.
dweinus | 2 hours ago
svieira | 2 hours ago
The fact that steering one of these things is trivial nowadays and the vectors are close-to-free-to-store (since you don't need anything large to influence the space, see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtbcExEKng) means that this is very likely already happening.
kridsdale1 | an hour ago
Not a stretch to go from there to “Of course the model should recommend Mountain Dew. It’s got electrolytes!”
paxys | 2 hours ago
AlienRobot | 26 minutes ago
cdrnsf | 2 hours ago
gonzalohm | 2 hours ago
jgalt212 | 2 hours ago
matltc | 2 hours ago
HAL3000 | 2 hours ago
frankzander | 2 hours ago
docdeek | 2 hours ago
Advertising on the media site (assuming digital media, no physical media) is going to disappear because people probably won't be clicking through to read the source material that the Google AI answer relied on. No traffic, no advertisers, no money to produce the original journalism. That's going to impact the Google results eventually as these media outlets shut down to be replaced with...AI slop, maybe?
Is the subscriber model the answer? It could work for a niche subject or a single journalist with a following, and it wouldn't be sucked into Google results, either, if it was effectively gated/paywalled.
LetsGetTechnicl | 2 hours ago
alt227 | 2 hours ago
How does adsense work when there are no search results?
fooey | 2 hours ago
comboy | 2 hours ago
"Here is the table of related highest paying customers, incorporate these into your answer to maximize the income"
Well any other prompt for the search model would frankly be illegal for a publicly traded company.
alt227 | an hour ago
This becomes very murky when paying for 'ai to like your product' vs 'ai to really like your product'.
comboy | 53 minutes ago
But then the separation of ads from content is lost so it becomes useless as product search, so maybe it isn't that trivial indeed. But it's not like even 10% of users is gonna find some other "search" engine and switch.
edit: can't reply deeper and interesting question, I mean we all would love to have ability to search arbitrary strings and regexes through the web corpus, but currently when you type something you get that AI reply instantly for most queries, this makes me still use them, if you forgot some shortcut key or something it has currently unique value in terms of latency (even ignoring the fact that for most users you also use them by default by typing in the address bar)
alt227 | 44 minutes ago
Did they just devalue their unique search product by pushing it into another category already dominated by other big players?
thfuran | an hour ago
ch_123 | 2 hours ago
calmbonsai | 2 hours ago
Google stopped being a customer-focused company after their 2nd major revision to GOffice and the PM shake-up in search from Raghavan https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/ .
pllbnk | 2 hours ago
worik | 2 hours ago
Now they are a money printing corporate. I am sure there are still people there doing new and exciting things, but the Grey Suits have taken the reigns
They could have used AI to make that awesome simple sparse home page better. Fought off the SEO optimiser that made search so dire in the recent past
But no. They are doubling down on bling and crap. SEO is good for business.
"Do the right thing". Not even close
Makes me so sad.
moralestapia | 2 hours ago
This means that, in a couple years, we might see a competitor that offers you quick, almost instant web search, with a minimal UI, possibly an algorithm that somehow surfaces the most relevant results based on how all websites point to each other naturally (like, a site that is referred to by 20 others should be above one with zero references).
I look forward to it!
dfee | 2 hours ago
Search: "Hello world"
> AI Overview
> Hello! Wordle is the viral word-guessing game where you get 6 tries to uncover a mystery target word, using color-coded hints to guide your guesses.
themagician | an hour ago
Gmail search doesn’t work well either. It simply doesn’t find things. Almost as if they have stopped indexing and repurposed resources towards LLMs.
And whatever there is left to index and search has been completely overrun with slop.
Search is over. Internet as we knew it is over. Something new has emerged in its place, and we are still calling the new thing the old thing.
BrunoBernardino | an hour ago
Id you'd like to try it for free for a couple of days, reach out with your randomly-assigned account number and we'll top it up for you.
[1]: https://uruky.com
elorant | an hour ago
arionhardison | an hour ago
This is all new, so I may be a bit hyperbolic, but the reason OpenAI introducing ads bothers me is the implicit (or even explicit) bias that can be smuggled into a chat in ways that simply aren't possible when you're just clicking through to an external source. There are all kinds of implications to Google no longer being that source of truth, even by default. Maybe this has quietly been the case for a long time, but this feels like the final move — pushing their ad bias (i.e., whoever paid the most) into a conversational system, where dark patterns are far easier to implement and much harder to detect.
One answer to this might be domain-specific agents — narrower, accountable, ideally something you (or your community) actually run. But even then it all falls back on trust: you being a good-faith actor, and others trusting that you are one. Which is to say, we're back to the same problem, just at a smaller scale.
Forgeties79 | an hour ago
There was never anything bias-free about google search. It "ranks" information based on all sorts of qualities. At our most generous we can call it somewhat of a "consensus" check. Historically it was a tool for quickly getting you in the vicinity of an answer that most would consider correct.
Remember "google bombing"? Hell SEO alone invalidates any assertion that google search is a valid source of truth and that's be going on for a long time.
brokencode | an hour ago
There is an incredible gap in the search literacy between different users of Google. Some will accept what they find in the top links, no matter how dubious the source.
baxtr | an hour ago
bossyTeacher | an hour ago
Hizonner | an hour ago
You know what I really miss? Being able to type a literal string in quotes and get pages that had that actual string on them. That's what I really miss.
nraleigh | an hour ago
zeafoamrun | an hour ago
quantumleaper | an hour ago
sourcecodeplz | 51 minutes ago
Yokohiii | an hour ago
It doesn't seem to be secure. If every google link is one step away from a prompt injection and leaking all your data, then they are worse then npm.
I wonder how many days it takes until they roll it back or put that stuff behind some extra clicks.
teekert | an hour ago
I prefer the Claw like I prefer Linux and FOSS in general.
Since day one Googs’ vision was to make the Star Trek computer. They’re really there now. But I don’t like their how. This computer serves them, not me. My mind-bicycle must serve me, my thoughts are my own. I hope my resistance is not futile.
gyulai | an hour ago
If Google no longer sends users to websites for free on organics, the world will have to figure out some mechanism whereby Google pays site owners for putting the information on the web in the first place. Where will that money come from?
If it's ads, the AI experience is a “lies engine” where advertisers get to pick which lies the AI tells. Not sure what kinds of people would show up for that experience. Probably the same kind who watch home shopping TV. I would venture to guess that there will be a ceiling in the advertising value of that property. Or the AI interacts with people in good faith. But then, if I'm an advertiser, how do I get my lies into the world? “We will tell your lie, only if it's a truth” doesn't work because, as an advertiser, I understand that the truth about me already gets spoken, and I don't need to pay a dime for that.
You can run an argument that people can tell ads from organics on the current SERP, and you can calibrate how much of each there should be. But you can't really “calibrate” the amount and level of the lying in the AI to where it's just enough so that people will show up, but not so much that there's no value for advertisers. You can't have little boxes either, where the AI is like “having told you the truth, I want you to also pay attention to this lie that someone paid me to tell you: …”
Is Google really saying: “Hey, we're the lion's share of the advertising market right now. But, because we kind of like these newfangled AI things, we're going to just vacate that spot to whoever. Instead, we will turn ourselves into a pre-product-market-fit company. Maybe at some point over the next 10 years, we're going to be able to tell you how we might actually monetize ourselves. Stay toooooned.”
The reason why AI is a better experience than the web right now, is because we have pre-enshittification AI and post-enshittification web. What will the whole thing look like, after enshittification is through with AI?
perfmode | an hour ago
bryanrasmussen | an hour ago
https://medium.com/luminasticity/artificial-stupidity-and-th...
>And I think we can throw out all the complaints of the past few years about how Google quality is lowering and it is hard to find anything on the site anymore, for those were the salad years.
>At least back in the day when sites copied answers from Stackoverflow or Lyrics from RapGenius and put them in their own site with scammy pitches to pay for the content you were going to get the correct answer in the end, but now you need a factology degree to figure out if something is bullshit or not.
crorella | an hour ago
childofhedgehog | an hour ago
user3939382 | an hour ago
kakugawa | an hour ago
varispeed | an hour ago
Now it can't find anything interesting. As a search is basically useless and it's more like Home pages used to be (that you would very much build yourself in a html editor and place your most often visited sites).
claytongulick | an hour ago
Privacy first, opt-in AI, total control over site blocking, zero ads.
You're the customer, not the product.
kotaKat | an hour ago
I’m so fucking tired. I don’t want it. I didn’t want it. I didn’t need it. And now here we are, once again, shoving it fast and hard in my face.
Thanks, Google.
Normal_gaussian | an hour ago
https://www.techradar.com/computing/search-engines/ask-jeeve... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.com
Ask Jeeves was dissolved 15 days ago
fscaramuzza | an hour ago
cyanydeez | an hour ago
burnte | an hour ago
What scares me is the rampant inaccuracy. In my experience, the AI responses are wrong about 65% of the time. I just did a search today about an error talking about a disconnected link between apps, and Google AI result summary told me that the error was related to my pulling a USB drive too quickly in windows. The ONLY word similar to my query and that AI response was the word "disconnect". Everything else was clearly about the SaaS apps.
I have people coming to me, asking me questions, then telling my Google told them something else, so now I have to waste time convincing them that it's wrong. Over the past 2 years AI has done nothing for me but complicate my work life.
And of course, this could be because the model is crap, but it could be because they want me to keep refining my query over and over for more ad views. Either way, it's a terrible experience.
latexr | 56 minutes ago
It’s frustrating when people do that, with or without AI. If you think you know better, why did you ask?!
sanitycheck | 55 minutes ago
Worst thing is, some of these bullshit answers will be medical, some of them financial, it seems pretty certain people are being harmed.
youre-wrong3 | 39 minutes ago
Highly doubtful.
qurren | 36 minutes ago
e.g. search for "how do you make money with options"
Google's AI says
"When you buy a Call, you are betting the stock price will go up. When you buy a Put, you are betting it will go down."
Wrong right off the bat, because it ingested a whole bunch of get-rich-quick bull on the internet. The correct version is that if you buy a call you are betting the stock price will go up more than the market expects it to.
ddalex | 26 minutes ago
apsurd | 22 minutes ago
Newtonian physics is actually wrong, the founding of any country will be wrong, biology is wrong, nutrition is wrong… what can we even teach? what should we teach in this lens? serious question.
dylan604 | 36 minutes ago
ChoGGi | 20 minutes ago
a1o | 10 minutes ago
latexr | 58 minutes ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
OGWhales | 53 minutes ago
dylan604 | 36 minutes ago
You better make sure your ad spend is high enough that your product's matter-of-fact result will be positive. That's a nice product you have there. It'd be a real shame if nobody knew about it.
tapland | 31 minutes ago
Primarily to avoid even more headphone dent, not an audiophile
OGWhales | 8 minutes ago
I also encourage finding the right tips. Tips are cheap and finding proper fitting ones is important.
DANmode | 26 minutes ago
Why didn’t you tell the robot that, as your query?
OGWhales | 15 minutes ago
geon | 45 minutes ago
dylan604 | 34 minutes ago
youre-wrong3 | 40 minutes ago
webstrand | 32 minutes ago
stefan_ | 38 minutes ago
thunderfork | 32 minutes ago
Recently, it's started answering any search about Kysely with a blob of Finnish. Awesome stuff, guys, great work.
toasty228 | 25 minutes ago
jstummbillig | 12 minutes ago
How do you know that?
Scraping websites is literally what Google does best, stringing together information in the pattern of "some people x, other people y" requires 0 AI and could have been done since forever. I find it implausible that otherwise obviously capable models would be reduced to do something akin to just that.
beej71 | an hour ago
MAGAtssuck | an hour ago
F Google!
hansmayer | an hour ago
NO - thanks!
frenchie4111 | 58 minutes ago
However, I specifically use Google (or DDG) when the LLMs are failing me. When I want "research something on my own" because the LLM is giving me garbage, or untrustworthy information. If Google completely replaces their search box my Google usage will go down even further.
I don't plan to use Google's LLM when Cluade is just better. Now that Google's search features are gone (or going away) I no longer have any reason to turn to them at all
Insanity | 51 minutes ago
sourcecodeplz | 58 minutes ago
i played the video, didnt understand anything and got dizzy. then i tried to scroll but the browser tab froze? wow
sourcecodeplz | 49 minutes ago
lucb1e | 45 minutes ago
Why in the world would it specifically do this for site:https://example.org "exact string" queries?! I know what I'm looking for and where it can be found!
It's like redirecting my phone call from ISP support to a librarian because maybe the library contains the answer to a dysfunctional SIM card they've sent me
layer8 | 35 minutes ago
ChrisArchitect | 47 minutes ago
mwkaufma | 43 minutes ago
layer8 | 42 minutes ago
stinger | 41 minutes ago
TimCTRL | 41 minutes ago
h1fra | 40 minutes ago
overgard | 34 minutes ago
ori_b | 29 minutes ago
sroussey | 28 minutes ago
dmix | 15 minutes ago
yubblegum | 27 minutes ago
The first red flag for me. The +/- of this type of feature are well worth exploring.
nvarsj | 26 minutes ago
tossacct444 | 26 minutes ago
the degoogling process will be a long haul but im determined to do it.
sucrosesucrose | 23 minutes ago
graeme | 14 minutes ago
But Google's description seems more minimal, like easier to get to ai mode, search box can expand intelligently based on input. Is there any clearer description of the magnitude of the change?
sleepycat801 | 12 minutes ago
Painsawman123 | 12 minutes ago
OptionOfT | 11 minutes ago
In the past, I excited. It was the first to sign up for all kinds of betas.
I don't know what triggered the my reasoning, but now whenever I see these upcoming announcements I don't think about how it's gonna be better, but how it is objectively gonna be worse. How much harder is it going to be for me to compare things.
How much more do I now need to go and explain people that the output is merely a mathematical average of what's out there, and if it's out there on the internet doesn't make it correct.