> Thank you to all of the users in our community who are willing to affirm that they have read the rules. Just scroll to the bottom and check the box.
>
> Right now, Reddit is completely flooded with bots and trolls partly due to the upcoming US midterms. What we do know is they don’t check boxes and that’s the entire point.
>
> We want this community to remain safe and sane for our valued community.
I started using AI for search originally because the results from Google were so riddled with ads and sites that were gaming their algorithm that I could no longer find useful information on the first or second page of the results. I'd love to see someone dig into if Google's greed for advertising dollars steered more people into using AI in the first place hurting their status as a search engine and as a result in advertising.
Google went to McKinsey Consulting to figure out how to increase profits. Instead of making search better or coming up with new products, McKinsey told Google they'd increase revenue more by making search results worse intentionally. If worse search results were shown to users more often, they'd need to search more times and thus see more pages and ads.
There’s no evidence whatsoever of McKinsey’s involvement and Google certainly didn’t need outsiders to tell them more searches mean more ad impressions.
You’re right - Sundar Pichai worked at McKinsey long enough to internalize everything they’re about, he just brought over all his McKinsey homies and made them Googlers.
But the dipshit who pulled the trigger with Pichai’s approval is this fucker right here: Prabhakar Raghavan
He frankly should be called the father of enshitifcation - the man who formed the first poop
IIRC Google was asked once why they got rid of the ad free search which enabled some special form of logging about 1-10% of the time. They had “determined” that users didn’t like that feature because they told only search one query instead of making multiple subsequent queries.
No one seemed to publicly acknowledge that users were making multiple queries because they literally could not find what they were searching for when the ads were enabled as the ads were so thick.
Why do you feel the need to spread such obvious bullshit? Google is the most profitable company in the world and search is their most profitable product. They aren't going to hand the wheel of their core business to a rando. Any substantial decisions they make about search are going to be made in house by people employed by them, especially something straightforward like showing more ads. Google only pays gets paid when users actually click on their search ads so your explanation doesn't make any sense either.
This is actually a really good point and a big reason I started using AI search and also have it pull summary information with links to websites so I can review the summary details if interest from a source.
SS: a growing issue with AI summaries is not confined to misleading information or lowered traffic on many websites (and lowered ad sales) because uninformed users only read the summaries. Like the problem AI summaries are causing for publishers of other websites AI summaries are also hitting Google ad sales as well.
But not even drops in stock value are slowing down the AI race by huge firms - not just Google.
“Microsoft and Amazon also issued updates this week, and joined Google in plans to keep spending huge sums of cash in the ongoing AI race.”
Think
Admiral David Farragut during the Battle of Mobile Bay.
pinned-comment | 14 hours ago
Featured Comment by u/voice-of-mods
> Thank you to all of the users in our community who are willing to affirm that they have read the rules. Just scroll to the bottom and check the box. > > Right now, Reddit is completely flooded with bots and trolls partly due to the upcoming US midterms. What we do know is they don’t check boxes and that’s the entire point. > > We want this community to remain safe and sane for our valued community.
^(see original)
dayburner | 18 hours ago
I started using AI for search originally because the results from Google were so riddled with ads and sites that were gaming their algorithm that I could no longer find useful information on the first or second page of the results. I'd love to see someone dig into if Google's greed for advertising dollars steered more people into using AI in the first place hurting their status as a search engine and as a result in advertising.
MookieFlav | 17 hours ago
Google went to McKinsey Consulting to figure out how to increase profits. Instead of making search better or coming up with new products, McKinsey told Google they'd increase revenue more by making search results worse intentionally. If worse search results were shown to users more often, they'd need to search more times and thus see more pages and ads.
dreamingtree1855 | 10 hours ago
There’s no evidence whatsoever of McKinsey’s involvement and Google certainly didn’t need outsiders to tell them more searches mean more ad impressions.
Wingzerofyf | 9 hours ago
You’re right - Sundar Pichai worked at McKinsey long enough to internalize everything they’re about, he just brought over all his McKinsey homies and made them Googlers.
But the dipshit who pulled the trigger with Pichai’s approval is this fucker right here: Prabhakar Raghavan
He frankly should be called the father of enshitifcation - the man who formed the first poop
Aureliamnissan | 10 hours ago
IIRC Google was asked once why they got rid of the ad free search which enabled some special form of logging about 1-10% of the time. They had “determined” that users didn’t like that feature because they told only search one query instead of making multiple subsequent queries.
No one seemed to publicly acknowledge that users were making multiple queries because they literally could not find what they were searching for when the ads were enabled as the ads were so thick.
Hothera | 16 hours ago
Why do you feel the need to spread such obvious bullshit? Google is the most profitable company in the world and search is their most profitable product. They aren't going to hand the wheel of their core business to a rando. Any substantial decisions they make about search are going to be made in house by people employed by them, especially something straightforward like showing more ads. Google only pays gets paid when users actually click on their search ads so your explanation doesn't make any sense either.
MookieFlav | 16 hours ago
Ok. Then please don't look at their antitrust lawsuit where it's all documented.
Hothera | 14 hours ago
It is not in the antitrust lawsuit. I'll donate $100 to a charity of your choice if you can find it.
atomsk404 | 18 hours ago
This is actually a really good point and a big reason I started using AI search and also have it pull summary information with links to websites so I can review the summary details if interest from a source.
It's way more time effective IMO.
[OP] horseradishstalker | 19 hours ago
SS: a growing issue with AI summaries is not confined to misleading information or lowered traffic on many websites (and lowered ad sales) because uninformed users only read the summaries. Like the problem AI summaries are causing for publishers of other websites AI summaries are also hitting Google ad sales as well.
But not even drops in stock value are slowing down the AI race by huge firms - not just Google.
“Microsoft and Amazon also issued updates this week, and joined Google in plans to keep spending huge sums of cash in the ongoing AI race.”
Think Admiral David Farragut during the Battle of Mobile Bay.