Live data from Hacker News

Google changes its search box

blog.google

681–690 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#681

If Google changes the internet so that no one visits websites anymore, no one is going to make or maintain websites. And at that point, A) What is left of the internet and B) What is left for Google to summarize via AI?

LLM already took around 70% of my traffic. I live from that website. I don’t think it will survive another two years, and updating it already feels pointless. Why choose my words so carefully when Google will just scramble them?

Re: Google changes its search box

#682
post #279
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?

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)

Sharing ideas with people is nice, the actual problem is your ideas in this case are just a vehicle for generative AI companies to monopolize access to information and control our own cognitive processes, which is not entirely something new but it feels like we are now moving backwards: from free access back to ministry of truth days

Re: Google changes its search box

#683

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 t…

Actually I have thought about it and I am running my personal search index.

Links

- https://github.com/rumca-js/Internet-Places-Database - Internet places

- https://github.com/rumca-js/awesome-database-feeds - RSS feeds

- https://rumca-js.github.io/search - demo search

- https://rumca-js.github.io/feeds - demo for feeds

- https://github.com/rumca-js/awesome-database-top - top places

Re: Google changes its search box

#684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do have an obligation because what you are describing is illegal, at least in the US under the CFAA.

Okay, nix the zip bombs. What's my obligation to treat bot-shaped traffic as something I should reply to?

Your obligation is not to cause harm to the requester.

Re: Google changes its search box

#685
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?

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,…

That's the problem with the current monopolistic system, the money won't go down the stream, it's like a dam. One big dam owned by a few people is worse than many small dams

Re: Google changes its search box

#687

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…

And this is the best the results will ever be! There's so many sites now that are themselves just the unreliable output of AI that it will soon be summarising the summary of a summary of an hallucination and presenting it just as confidently as ever.

Re: Google changes its search box

#688

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 t…

[dead]

Re: Google changes its search box

#689
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?

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,…

Then we go and pay to Cloudeflare or other cloud providers you host sites with to prevent Google from scraping.

Let the big guys fight it out.

There is money in protecting the websites. If you host with OVH they are interested in you making money so you can pay them.

Re: Google changes its search box

#690
post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

It's nice that Google's AI summary always lists its sources. It's less nice that those sources more often than not do not corroborate the summary. It often seems to be a few random links thrown in there for good measure. I have no idea why this is, but it is impossible that these links are primary sources of the data, if such things even exists at all. In which case, why list them? It is certainly seems possible that…

> It is certainly seems possible that the actual sources of the data is the output of some other LLM.

My guess is you can see this happening with the bots on Reddit where they are refining the answers to one certain thing, often getting two or three the same responses in a row from different users because they have been enforcing themselves by digesting the output of other bots. Waiting to see when they cut down the sentences and start talking garbage.

Post reply on HN