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

DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#31

Post by Thanemate »

7952 wrote: post #22
cassianoleal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everywhere. AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.

I started to find that the AI bit was the most useful part of Google Search. But the actual search results were terrible and now I use Kagi. I like being able to add a question mark and control what becomes AI and what doesn't. I use normal search like a Ctrl F for the internet and don't want it to be too clever.

My non-tech savvy mother started reading the stuff the Google Search AI answers to for some searches, and she's already fed up with it saying whatever. To her it doesn't matter that the "AI can make mistakes" because (in her own wording) "if it's faulty, don't answer".

There's a difference between "linking to a source that may be incorrect" and "you providing the text that's blatantly wrong", and Google seems too big to care about it.

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#32

Post by d_silin »

king_zee wrote: post #23
d_silin wrote: post #3

The logical business opportunity in the current LLM-boom is to create a bunch of AI-less services and products, and then charge money to access them. Think of premium branding analogy: masses get cheap AI slop, wealthy get high quality human-curated and human-created produce. Like organic vs regular food.

This is sad and dystopian, why don't companies instead make AI optional in their products?

Among IT giants, Apple is the only such option.

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#33

Post by [deleted] »

miyoji wrote: post #26
john_strinlai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chatgpt alone had like ~900 million weekly active users last i checked. thats a lot of c-suites (or the anti-ai crowd is more vocal than the occasional chatgpt user)

I don't think you understand that there's a difference between a user who wants an AI chatbot and a user who wants to perform a web search, and even if they're the exact same user, they expect for a web search to operate like a web search and not like a chatbot. I don't think anyone who works in product management at any company in 2026 understands this, so you're not alone.

[deleted]

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#35

Post by guerrilla »

7952 wrote: post #22
cassianoleal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everywhere. AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.

I started to find that the AI bit was the most useful part of Google Search. But the actual search results were terrible and now I use Kagi. I like being able to add a question mark and control what becomes AI and what doesn't. I use normal search like a Ctrl F for the internet and don't want it to be too clever.

Yeah, gonna be honest. I ridiculed people for it before, but now I use Google's AI a lot. I haven't used Google in over a decade otherwise and I still don't. I use Brave for search but Google's AI is better than anyone else's for what I do. You heard it guys, I was wrong. I admit it.

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#36

Post by d_silin »

Xirdus wrote: post #30
d_silin wrote: post #3

The logical business opportunity in the current LLM-boom is to create a bunch of AI-less services and products, and then charge money to access them. Think of premium branding analogy: masses get cheap AI slop, wealthy get high quality human-curated and human-created produce. Like organic vs regular food.

This only works if your business is large enough that you and all your competitors aren't expected to have humans doing everything already, but small enough that going AI won't boost your valuation by much. My intuition is that the intersection is pretty much empty.

Who says "valuation"? I am talking about "profits", something that none of the the upcoming IPO debutantes have managed to achieve.

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#37

Post by john_strinlai »

jaredwiener wrote: post #18
john_strinlai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

chatgpt alone had like ~900 million weekly active users last i checked. thats a lot of c-suites (or the anti-ai crowd is more vocal than the occasional chatgpt user)

Theres a difference between users seeking out AI, and PMs cramming AI into previously existing products.

i obviously agree that those are two different things.

but its also obviously not true that "AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#38

Post by [deleted] »

john_strinlai wrote: post #17
cassianoleal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everywhere. AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.

chatgpt alone had like ~900 million weekly active users last i checked. thats a lot of c-suites (or the anti-ai crowd is more vocal than the occasional chatgpt user)

[deleted]

Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms

#40

Post by mschuster91 »

7952 wrote: post #22
cassianoleal wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everywhere. AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.

I started to find that the AI bit was the most useful part of Google Search. But the actual search results were terrible and now I use Kagi. I like being able to add a question mark and control what becomes AI and what doesn't. I use normal search like a Ctrl F for the internet and don't want it to be too clever.

> But the actual search results were terrible

I think it's reasonable to assume that Google artificially nerfed its search engine before they pushed so massively for AI.

Post reply on HN