Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google changes its search box

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#141

Post by jrmg »

lunar_mycroft wrote: post #111
nostrademons wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 have to read the sources anyway, why not just have the model give me the links themselves? You know, like search engines already do?

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.

Model collapse everywhere.

Re: Google changes its search box

#142

Post by alt227 »

swarnie wrote: post #132
ekidd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Allow? Deep down, do you think you have a choice? 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.

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#143

Post by hootz »

mrweasel wrote: post #105
hootz wrote: post #28

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.

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 h…

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#145

Post by VLM »

ivraatiems wrote: post #27
pclowes wrote: post #22

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…

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.

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#146

Post by chrismorgan »

jerf wrote: post #87
ivraatiems wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 a…

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#148

Post by ignu »

microtonal wrote: post #40
fidotron wrote: post #23

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#149

Post by coldpie »

ekidd wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #10

Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...

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?

> allowing Googlebot to crawl my sites

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#150

Post by HAL3000 »

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.
Post reply on HN