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

Google changes its search box

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 961 posts

Re: Google changes its search box

#581

Post by notatoad »

macic wrote: post #442
arionhardison wrote: post #218

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…

Google is not bias-free, and has not been for a long time.

and even if it was, when a search engine takes you to another website, that site is also not bias free.

just becuase somebody publishes something on a website, does not make it a fact. google has always been good at finding things that look like facts, and their AI iteration is also good at that.

Re: Google changes its search box

#582

Post by thedougd »

gsk22 wrote: post #453
RyanOD wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me one needs to consider the complexity of the question they are asking before searching it. To stick with your post, consider people asking medical or financial questions. For a wide variety of reasons, many of such questions don't have an answer. In such cases, AI is still going to take a crack at it. AI shouldn't be blamed for "bullshit answers" to such questions. Before using AI, I think people should…

The problem is Google's AI results get even simple factual questions wrong all the time. Earlier today, I searched "pixel 10 wifi 7" because I was confused that GSMArena showed my Pixel 8 supports Wifi 7, but the Pixel 10 only Wifi 6. Gemini confidently claimed that the Pixel 10 does support Wifi 7 -- but that's not true at all. Only the Pixel 10 _Pro_ supports it, as I discovered when actually reading the non-AI sea…

Admittedly I’m unsure if it was Google or DuckDuckGo. I switch between both. I quickly asked the in search AI for a UTC time conversion like a lazy fool and it got it off by almost a day wrong.

Re: Google changes its search box

#583

Post by notatoad »

nraleigh wrote: post #226

I think this is the second time in a week (the first being the "Googlebook") that Google's promotional announcement video showcasing UI is so full of special effects, dramatic pan/zooms, and woosh sounds, that I have no idea how the final-end product actually looks or works.

in both cases, the reality is that nothing has changed all that much.

the googlebook is a laptop. the search box doesn't really work differently to how it did yesterday. (how it worked ten years ago, yes it's very different. but ai mode is already here). neither of these things are a big deal. the promo videos are for the sake of making promo videos.

Re: Google changes its search box

#585

Post by Robotbeat »

codebje wrote: post #518
RyanOD wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, fair. Hard to understand why it would get that wrong.

Because LLMs aren't sentient, they don't draw on facts, and they don't have nuance. The answer given is similar to answers you might expect to see for similar questions. It's really amazing we can make machines do that, and it's really depressing that we think a stochastic bullshit machine is going to give us something we can rely on.

Or… the default LLM Google uses for search has been quantized to s**. Ask a proper Thinking model, with browsing enabled, and odds of a correct answer are much higher. There’s been substantial improvement in AI in even the last year.

Ask a human a question like this, and they also have a chance of getting it wrong, even when confident.

Re: Google changes its search box

#586

Post by skydhash »

tapland wrote: post #362
OGWhales wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I was looking up a pair of IEMS vs another pair of IEMs. It said option A is overall better, when really it was just reciting a single person's opinion. I've been aware it will summarize only a single source and present it as an aggregation of many opinions, but it stood out to me how matter-of-fact it was that the one was definitely better than the other. I simply wanted to find forum discussions on people's th…

Since the best resource is personal recommendations, got any entry level cheap IEM recommendations? Primarily to avoid even more headphone dent, not an audiophile

Most of the ones that are over 50 can last a lot of time and have good enough sounds. But the most important stuff are the tips and the cable. Make sure the former fits (just buy a pack) and the latter is thick and braided. Some cheapo ones send every rubbing amplified to your ears.

Re: Google changes its search box

#587

Post by lifis »

ekidd wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #10

Nilay Patel has been talking about "Google Zero" - the moment when Google effectively stops sending any traffic to other sites - for a few years now: https://www.theverge.com/24167865/google-zero-search-crash-h...

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?

The expected purpose of websites is to spread information, so whether users get it by making a request to your website or to Google is irrelevant. In fact, if they get it from Google it's better because it reduces website load.

If instead the purpose of your website is to manipulate users for financial gain (for instance by showing media attempting to manipulate their purchasing decisions, after receiving a bribe from a vendor), and the information is just a way to lure users, then maybe this malicious business model will finally be no longer possible.

Re: Google changes its search box

#588

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Alternative to archive.ph and "unlocked article" tracking code

Works where archive.ph is blocked

Text-only

   view-source:https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/19/business/google-seach-bar-ai-gemini.html
   Save as 1.htm
Something like

   egrep -o "(\"text\":\"[^\"]+)|(\"textAlign\":\"LEFT\")|(\"url\":\"[^\"]+)|(\"__typename\":\"TextInline\")" 1.htm \
   |sed '/\"url\":\"/{s/??.*//;s/$/\">/;s/.\{7\}//;s/.\{24\}//;};
         s/\"textAlign\":\"LEFT\"/
/g;/\"text\":\"/s/.\{8\}//' \
   |sed '1s/^//' > 2.htm
   rm 1.htm
   firefox ./2.htm
NB. Javascript and CSS interpreters are needed only for Datadome CAPTCHA. The following DNS data is required

   ct.captcha-delivery.com
   geo.captcha-delivery.com
   www.nytimes.com
   g1.nyt.com
No other DNS data is required

Re: Google changes its search box

#589

Post by jazzyjackson »

Robotbeat wrote: post #585
codebje wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because LLMs aren't sentient, they don't draw on facts, and they don't have nuance. The answer given is similar to answers you might expect to see for similar questions. It's really amazing we can make machines do that, and it's really depressing that we think a stochastic bullshit machine is going to give us something we can rely on.

Or… the default LLM Google uses for search has been quantized to s**. Ask a proper Thinking model, with browsing enabled, and odds of a correct answer are much higher. There’s been substantial improvement in AI in even the last year. Ask a human a question like this, and they also have a chance of getting it wrong, even when confident.

*so long as an accurate answer exists on the internet

Claude is OK at saying when it can’t find good information, but it’s still 50/50 on citing a source that has nothing to do with its claim.

Re: Google changes its search box

#590

Post by nvme0n1p1 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #585
codebje wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because LLMs aren't sentient, they don't draw on facts, and they don't have nuance. The answer given is similar to answers you might expect to see for similar questions. It's really amazing we can make machines do that, and it's really depressing that we think a stochastic bullshit machine is going to give us something we can rely on.

Or… the default LLM Google uses for search has been quantized to s**. Ask a proper Thinking model, with browsing enabled, and odds of a correct answer are much higher. There’s been substantial improvement in AI in even the last year. Ask a human a question like this, and they also have a chance of getting it wrong, even when confident.

> Ask a human a question like this

Why would a human know specs for a random phone off the top of their head? The human response is either "I don't know" or "let me look that up", not a hallucination.

Post reply on HN