but i dont know who visits google.com anymore
Effectively every internet user, multiple times a day.
Google changes its search box
571–580 of 961 posts
Re: Google changes its search box
#572Earlier 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?
That's Google making way for its disruptor. We'll see who that is. Imagine a search engine that just presents search results. Groundbreaking.
More likely you're going to get a search engine which returns results as short 5 second AI generated video clips with an infinite scroll.
(Torment Nexus rules apply here)
Re: Google changes its search box
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's wrong 2 out of 5 times, why even waste your time going to it in the first place? That's a massive failure rate.
Because it finds the sources much quicker than I would have been able to on my own, and I can then synthesize them into data I know is correct, as correct as any human-generated data can be of course.
But what that because their search was so bad that it took you that long to find the sources?
Re: Google changes its search box
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is actually another way that was just hinted at a few days ago demonstrated by the EU courts reaffirming a law from 2019 against Meta, just force google et al to compensate publishers: https://www.epceurope.eu/post/epc-welcomes-landmark-cjeu-rul...
That translates to "Force Google to give money to these specific organizations and newspapers which EU leaders wish to benefit". It won't help any individuals who has made great websites with important and popular information.
Well that's just an example, You could mandate an API to allow bots pay their fair share; could ban google from using content it stole without compensation; could shatter google into a thousand pieces.. There are music rights organizations with small time artists to huge celebrities, they are strong organizations that collect revenue from big platforms and redistribute it to all artists as well. Lots and lots of ways to address this problem.
My appeal is just to realize that our implicit assumption that we can't do anything ever at all besides appealing to completely ineffectual individual action is in and of itself a strongly ideological and politically radical position to take.
Re: Google changes its search box
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it finds the sources much quicker than I would have been able to on my own, and I can then synthesize them into data I know is correct, as correct as any human-generated data can be of course.
But what that because their search was so bad that it took you that long to find the sources?
No, it's usually because it finds sources that I would not have even thought to search for in the first place.
Agentic AI has its faults, but one thing I've found it to be very good at is surfacing the "unknown unknowns": things I didn't know I should have searched for but that are directly relevant to my problem.
Re: Google changes its search box
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Kind of”, indeed. > Please provide 1-5 forum discussions or social media comment threads discussing or comparing x and y .
Well, that’s how I would ask an AI. I wasn’t asking an AI though, I was googling it
Google is “an AI”,
and has been for some time!,
was my point ^.^
Re: Google changes its search box
#577First signs of the death of google.
Re: Google changes its search box
#578I understand why they are doing this. My Google search usage is easily down 50%+. I doubt I am unique here. While there are times where I want pure search (Kagi, Old Google) I mostly use LLMs to search now and have them provide me links for source data. When I do use LLMs as a search engine I always want it integrated into my AI workflows with access to tools and scripts etc. I never want to have a conversation with…
It's tough for me to square the two things happening simultaneously in AI right now: 1. LLM Model providers are starting to charge real costs to users, revealing that AI usage is much more expensive than the subsidized rates we've been seeing for years. 2. Google is now using an LLM to answer every single google search that happens, for which Google bears the entire cost.
In my experience, LLM usage follows an exponential distribution i.e. most people using LLMs are not using many resources, but a very small few are using a massive amount of resources. Most LLM usage is trivial and tiny, most of what I use LLMs for could be done by a local model with a decent web retrieval tool. What some people I know use LLMs for requires massive volumes of tokens. Its that small power user base which I would bet they are targetting.
Re: Google changes its search box
#579Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of Walmarts squeezing strategy with all the manufacturers. Business with us at the price we say or out of business.
But ultimately that strategy is good for the consumer right? In this context, if Google is going to give me the recipe without having to scroll through the story, that seems like a win to me. The ad-revenue driven Internet of web 2.0 is finally dead and I'm not sure I'm all that sad.
No, because now Google controls entirely what you see. They could decide to show you the recipe after all.
Also, at some point even the ad-laden websites will die, and then Googles sources will be extinguished.
Re: Google changes its search box
#580This might just do irreversible damage to my parents' generation. They already trust the AI overview with all of the thinking and synthesizing after making a search, and this will only make it worse.