Live data from Hacker News

Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

gizmodo.com

221–230 of 378 posts

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon Search is now nearly completely useless for any kind of targeted search. Heaven help you if you're looking for a product without a certain attribute most other products like it all have. There is quite literally no way to filter results against one attribute. Even if Amazon has that product, you won't be able to find it. I eventually just scripted a separate search engine query that's site specific to Amazon.…

Oh my god I ran into this yesterday. I wanted a very specific kind of underarmour sweat pants. It gave me every other company competing with underarmour and a bunch of things that are not sweat pants. It’s like they’re not even trying to do “search” any more, but instead just feed your search string into their ad auction system and give you the results. There’s just no way to actually get a specific thing.

I've slammed headfirst into this wall of infuriating frustration dozens of times. Just trying to find a particular kind of LED bulb that has the feature of being dimmable. Any attempt at searching for that term returns all of the bulbs which helpfully mention "Not Dimmable". And there's no way to exclude that string.

It's maddening because Amazon used to have a modern, reasonably capable search function. You could require terms. You could exclude terms. Terms could be phrases. I'm sure they still have all these capabilities, they've just decided to intentionally disable them because their A/B testing indicated that breaking their search would return a fractional percent more revenue by shoveling more unrelated results in front customers. It must work on someone but it's never worked even once on me, because I KNOW what I need and I'm only going to buy exactly that - if I can fucking find it.

I'd actually be okay to let Amazon annoy the NPCs who just clickety-click and buy whatever random shiny shit they shovel in front of them, IF they'd just add something for us technically-minded, engineering type people who are looking for one precise thing only. They can even hide it behind an arcane interface like REGEX. That'll keep the rabble out! :-)

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#222

Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…

Adding unwanted features, bolting on an AI assistant, changing to a subscription model, and even automating away employees can all be explained by the following iron rule: C-level leadership lives in abject terror of the numbers not going up anymore. Even if a product is perfect, and everyone who needs it owns it, and it needs no improvement, they must still find a way make the numbers go up. Always. So, they'll grab hold of any trend which, in their panic, seems like it might be a possible life preserver.

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#224
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll repeat my favorite quote about it (paraphrased and read it here first but don't recall the attribution): AI can copy a song, tell me a joke, predict what I buy, but I still have to do my own dishes. If AI (or any tech) could clean, do dishes, or cook (which is not a chore for many, I acknowledge that) it could potentially bring families together and improve the quality of peoples lives. Instead they are introduc…

2030 at the latest. LLM androids(robots).

> LLM androids

They'll make you the perfect pizza with cheese that doesn't slide off because of the glue.

But seriously, I predict inadvisably-applied LLMs are going to eventually end up somewhere between the mistakes of Juicero and the mistakes of leaded gasoline.

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#225

Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…

I am totally in the same boat but also I do suspect it is a minority. It’s the same way that some people really want open source bootloaders, but 99.99% of people do not care at all. Maybe AI assistants in random places just aren’t that compatible with people on HN but are possibly useful for a lot of people not on HN?

I think this is the case. Most of my family and friends use and like the various AI features that are popping up but aren't interested thinking about how to coax what they want out of ChatGPT or Claude.

When it's integrated into a product people are more likely to use it. Lowering the barrier to entry so to speak.

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#226
Just use this https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14 as the default browser engine. See also https://udm14.com/.

I was late to this, but G's default search had been becoming worse and worse. The trick is equivalent to clicking the "Web" tab when you do default search. In 99.9% cases the "Web" tab is what I need, it's pure and no noise. I do not mind clicking the "All" tab e.g. for a tennis player last name during AO to get all details I need. Actually, for sport events the default G's functionality is insanely useful, such as live score updates.

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am totally in the same boat but also I do suspect it is a minority. It’s the same way that some people really want open source bootloaders, but 99.99% of people do not care at all. Maybe AI assistants in random places just aren’t that compatible with people on HN but are possibly useful for a lot of people not on HN?

I agree with this. I'm very surprised when I see someone blindly trust whatever the AI summary says in a google query, because I myself have internalized a long time ago to strongly distrust it.

I’ve seen quite a few posts on Reddit with people asking questions like “Is a Mazda 2 really faster than a Civic Type R?!? ChatGPT told me it is” and it’s some complete nonsense numbers that could’ve been fact checked in about 5 seconds.

I don’t think the little “ChatGPT might be wrong, you should check” disclaimer is doing very much.

Re: Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries

#230

Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a way to get rid of it. It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring into "features" that the public continues to reject at every opportunity. At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of e…

It's not strange. It's about power and control. Google and the other big names could care less about user satisfaction: their customers are the ad buyers. It's too bad because even 10 years ago Google and the internet in general were magical. You could find information on any topic, make connections and change your life. Now it is mostly santized dumbed down crap and the discovery of anything special is hidden under…

One of the fun things about surveillance capitalism is that you can't correct errors in any of the millions of assumptions being made about you based on any number of tiny details collected about your life.

Sounds like somebody somewhere thinks that you're old, or that you know an old person. Maybe you live in an area with lots of old people. Maybe you've got aging parents. Maybe an old person had your IP before you did. Maybe just the fact that you're still using facebook is good enough to identify someone as being old the majority of the time.

Post reply on HN