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

301–310 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#301

Post by binkHN »

imoverclocked wrote: post #37

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from multiple sources, it can also get things wrong by combining information from different eras or just plain outdated advice.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…

> 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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#302

Post by rurp »

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?

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#303

Post by cyanydeez »

fscaramuzza wrote: post #290

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 contributio…

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"

Re: Google changes its search box

#304

Post by ori_b »

Yokohiii wrote: post #238
imoverclocked wrote: post #37

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…

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…

Google search is just broken.

Re: Google changes its search box

#306

Post by jefftk »

kennywinker wrote: post #288
jefftk wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#307

Post by vor_ »

snailmailman wrote: post #80
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 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 doc…

> 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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#308

Post by rurp »

data-ottawa wrote: post #275
embedding-shape wrote: post #3

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.

This all feels a bit hyperbolic. 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. Accordi…

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.

Re: Google changes its search box

#309

Post by burnte »

fscaramuzza wrote: post #290

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 contributio…

> What scares me about this new AI mode thingy

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.

Post reply on HN