But they already have an AI mode tab… What is the innovation here, making it default instead of search?
Google changes its search box
621–630 of 961 posts
Re: Google changes its search box
#622Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I had a similar thing when I was gooling a few days ago, I can't remember exactly but it was like "why does [product] not support [feature]" and the AI summary was confidently wrong, saying "The product does support [feature]", which knew was completely incorrect, and I did find a Reddit discussion or something in the actual results with discussions that were actually about what I was looking for! It's really depress…
It’s hilariously persistent in this, esp. for anything even slightly divergent from the beaten path. Discount everything the AI box says about emacs to zero.
Re: Google changes its search box
#623Earlier 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, and they also have a chance of getting it wrong, even when confident.
We google something specifically because the humans within reach don't know. The goal of searching is, well, to search pages - we're trying to find a site when we use google search.
The goal when using an LLM is generally different; we want an answer, not a site.
Re: Google changes its search box
#624Earlier quoted context omitted.
A couple of years back I worked with a company which maintained specific data which was the main traffic driver on that page. Google approached them and wanted to pay for the rights to get the data and display it on top of the search results, a feature which was fairly new back then. This was an interesting dilemma because it was very clear that the money was way less than the loss in ad revenue due to traffic drop,…
That doesn't feel like a repetition at all? You said that the first time there was "traffic loss but without the extra google money", but that this time there's no extra google money either way.
The part where data providers lose traffic because their own data is displayed directly on the google premises is what repeats.
Re: Google changes its search box
#625Earlier quoted context omitted.
My literal first thought was "do I seriously need to use bing now?".
There is a 99% chance (IMO) that Microsoft is going to go the same route as Google here
Also, usually, as soon as they realize they have a not-total-shit product, they immediately start to screw it up completely. So if bing ends up being better actually, it won't be long until they replace every good part of it with something ridiculous. I don't know how microsoft does it, but they are so incredibly good at that.
Re: Google changes its search box
#626The death of Google search referrals?
Re: Google changes its search box
#627Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. For years we've been telling people to 'just fucking google it', and now when they do they're getting bullshit AI answers. Worst thing is, some of these bullshit answers will be medical, some of them financial, it seems pretty certain people are being harmed.
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…
[deleted]
Re: Google changes its search box
#628Even more reasons to avoid using Google. I have been a DuckDuckGo user for a few years now.
Re: Google changes its search box
#629Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has reduced traffic to my website by around 65%. I live from that website. My income is a function of the traffic it gets. I spent 9 years of my life putting hard-earned information on the internet, and now big tech uses it to enrich themselves while putting me out of work. Even my backup plan - software development - is being devalued to hell. It's so damn depressing. We'll get the internet that we deserve.
To be fair, the traffic you had was mostly routed by them as well. Google giveth, Google taketh away.
Callous take. You make it seem like only Google was giving here. If Google was routing users to OP's site, surely OP had something beneficial to give.
Re: Google changes its search box
#630Earlier 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.
You can find many ad free recipes in the cookbooks at your local library. They're likely of higher quality as well.