[flagged]
Amazing to place this level of disdain into a comment that is so completely incorrect
DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
101–110 of 168 posts
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 1: read the article. Step 2 (optional): comment on the article. You're doing these in the wrong order.
You should explain why, otherwise you risk becoming part of the problem.
You should explain the problem, otherwise you risk becoming part of the same problem.
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#103> Since then, traffic to DuckDuckGo has been booming. Last week, the company noted that web visits to its no-AI search page were up nearly 30% week-over-week, and its U.S. app installs were also up 18.1% week-over-week, with U.S. iOS app installs peaking at 69.9% week-over-week growth. Of course there are no absolute numbers or scale. This is just an advertisement for DuckDuckGo. It's gross that previously respected…
DDG used to have a graph showing the number of queries they did daily. It was around 100 million searches a day before they removed it a few years back. They were receiving bad press at the time IIRC.
An educated guess is they're doing a similar number of searches today.
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#104Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 1: read the article. Step 2 (optional): comment on the article. You're doing these in the wrong order.
You should explain why, otherwise you risk becoming part of the problem.
Why in general? Because if you don't read the article, you run a strong risk of reacting to things that the article didn't actually say. See OP for a good example.
Why this OP specifically? Because he is strongly reacting to the article's claim that "Ai is not the default" ... which is not stated or implied by the article he's replying to.
The article is a useful bulletin that DDG has a "no AI" function, previously accessible via a URL and now through extensions as well. OP is acting like DDG is claiming to be an anti-AI company, based on nothing stated in the article.
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That difference can be pretty small when most of the web is also consumed by low effort automatically generated slop. You can't escape it. I know there is a good web out there, but the search engines refuse to give it to me. Probably their algorithm. preferring recent content over good content.
I suspect the only real answer is an economic one, Something like Kagi, where hopefully by paying for results you change from being the product to a customer and this is incentive enough for them to provide good results.
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should explain why, otherwise you risk becoming part of the problem.
You should explain the problem, otherwise you risk becoming part of the same problem.
Surely there is a problem in OPs mind that prompted him to write this message so why should I explain it when op already knows it?
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Google only cares when something gains traction (and thus potentially hurts its bottom line". For example, it was answering "How many p's in Google" with "There are two p's in Google"[1] for long enough for me to get non-technical family members making a joke out of it. Google fixed it, only for it then to briefly tell you there were no p's in 'Alphabet' either.
Those particular bits on nonsense seem to have been stopped for now, but let's not fall prey to Gell-Mann amnesia. The only problem Google has fixed is "our LLM was hurting our reputation in this specific case". They have not, and likely cannot, fix the underlying problem.
1. https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/27/why-googles-ai-cant-spell-...
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#109Does DuckDuckGo support -not_wanted_word syntax? I tried to use it with -shop or -pharmacy and it still gave me unwanted results
Re: DuckDuckGo makes its 'no-AI' search engine easier to access as its traffic booms
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, don't forget about all the programmers who are excited to help destroy their own livelihoods for no extra compensation.
Pretty wild to see this in a technology forum . The whole idea of technology is to do more with less. It inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable. Have you ever wondered how many livelihoods computer programmers have destroyed? Now that programming itself is on the chopping block, suddenly some moral line has been crossed?
[dead]