The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.
Google AI has been listing incorrect internal extensions causing departments to field calls for people trying to reach unrelated divisions and services, listing times and dates of events that don't exist at our addresses that people are showing up to, and generally misdirecting and misguiding people who really need correct information from a truth source like our websites.
We have to track each and every one of these problems down, investigate and evaluate whether we can reproduce them, give them a "thumbs down" to then be able to submit "feedback", with no assurance it will be fixed in a timely manner and no obvious way to opt ourselves out of it entirely. For something beyond our consent and control.
It's worse than when Google and Yelp would create unofficial business profiles on your behalf and then held them hostage until you registered with their services to change them.
In the UK we've got amazing National Health Service informational websites[1], and regional variations of those [2]. For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one. So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive.
Google's AI overview not only ignores this geographic detail, it ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites like Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic is a great resource, if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.
> ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites
Weird because although I dislike what Google Search has become as much as any other HNer, one thing that mostly does work well is localised content. Since I live in a small country next to a big country that speaks the same language, it's quite noticeable to me that Google goes to great lengths to find the actually relevant content for my searches when applicable... of course it's not always what I'm actually looking for, because I'm actually a citizen of the other country that I'm not living in, and it makes it difficult to find answers that are relevant to that country. You can add "cr=countryXX" as a query parameter but I always forget about it.
Anyway I wasn't sure if the LLM results were localised because I never pay attention to them so checked and it works fine, they are localised for me. Searching for "where do I declare my taxes" for example gives the correct question depending on the country my IP is from.
Just a point of one, but when you have a German SIM with a German contract in the German mobilephone network, Google thinks your're in Romania. I mean I don't mind that, because I don't need Google to know accurately where I am.
Then you have to use a VPN and you can always use the cr= parameter to orient the results towards the region you want if your search is location-sensitive.
But I feel like this is quite an unrelated problem, IPs being linked to a country is a fundamental part of the current architecture of the Internet.
> For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one
its not a UK wide one. The home page says "NHS Website for England".
I seem to remember the Scottish one had privacy issues with Google tracking embedded, BTW.
> So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive
But someone in a remote part of England will get the same advice as someone in central London, and someone in central Edinburgh will get the same advice as someone on a remote island, so it does not really work that way.
> if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.
Human biology is the same, diseases are the same, and the difference in available treatments is not usually all that different. This suggests to me someone's advice is wrong. Of course there are legitimate differences of opinion (the same applies to differences between
> But someone in a remote part of England will get the same advice as someone in central London,
The current system might not have perfect geographic granularity but that doesn't mean it isn't preferable to one that gives advice from half the world away.
> Human biology is the same, diseases are the same, and the difference in available treatments is not usually all that different
Accepted medical definitions differ, accepted treatments differ, financial considerations, wait times and general expectations of service vary wildly.
I still find it amazing that the world's largest search engine, which so many use as an oracle, is so happy to put wrong information at the top of its page. My examples recently -
- Looking up a hint for the casino room in the game "Blue Prince", the AI summary gave me details of the card games on offer at the "Blue Prince Casino" in the next suburb over. There is no casino there.
- Looking up workers rights during a discussion of something to do with management, it directly contradicted the legislation and official government guidance.
I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for business-owners, or those providing information services to find that their traffic is intercepted and their potential visitors treated to an inaccurate version on the search page.
It's kinda old news now but I still love searching for made-up idioms.
> "You can't get boiled rice from a clown" is a phrase that plays on expectations and the absurdity of a situation.
> The phrase "never stack rocks with Elvis" is a playful way of expressing skepticism about the act of stacking rocks in natural environments.
> The saying "two dogs can't build an ocean" is a colloquial and humorous way of expressing the futility or impossibility of a grand, unachievable goal or task.
They're just playing games. Of course that violates the 'never play games with an AI' rule, which is a playful way of expressing that AIs will drag you down to their level and then beat you over the head with incompetence.
Unlike Firefox, Safari has another huge corporate backer (Apple). Apple is drowning in cash. They don't need Google's money to keep developing Safari. It's "just" a good, low-effort deal for them. Apple doesn't have a competing search engine, or an intention to develop one, or an intention to promote a free web and "save" their users from a search engine monopoly.
I find it amazing, having observed the era when Google was an up-and-coming website, that they’ve gotten so far off track. I mean, this must have been what it felt like when IBM atrophied.
But, they hired the best and brightest of my generation. How’d they screw it up so bad?
They sell ads and harvest attention. This is working as designed, it just happens that they don’t care about customers till they leave. So use something else instead.
The capitalist system is broken. Incentives to maximise stockholder values will maximise stockholder values very well. Everything else will go to shit. This is true about everything from user experience to the environment to democracy.
For years, a search for “is it safe to throw used car batteries into the ocean” would show an overview saying that not only is it safe, it’s beneficial to ocean life, so it’s a good thing to do.
At some point, an article about how Google was showing this crap made it to the top of the rankings and they started taking the overview from it rather than the original Quora answer it used before. Somehow it still got it wrong, and just lifted the absurd answer from the article rather than the part where the article says it’s very wrong.
Amusingly, they now refuse to show an AI answer for that particular search.
It looks like the specific phrase form is blocked in Google Search's AI header. It seems most likely that this was because it was being gamed. Searching "is it safe to throw used car batteries into the ocean" gets links to the meme.
All the ML tools seem to clearly say it's not safe, nor ethical - if you ask about throwing batteries in the sea then Google Search's summary is what you'd expect, completely inline with other tools.
If a large swathe of people choose to promote a position that is errant, 'for the memes' or whatever reason, then you're going to break tools that rely on broad agreement of many sources.
It seems like Google did the right thing here - but it also looks like a manual fix/intervention. Do Google still claim not to do that? Is there a watchdog routine that finds these 'attacks' and mitigates the effects?
I was at an event where someone was arguing there wasn't an entry fee because chatgpt said it was free (with a screenshot of proof) then asked why they weren't honoring their online price.
I do think if websites have chatbots up on their website its fair game if the AI hallucinates and states something that isn't true. Like when the airline chatbot hallucinated a policy that didn't exist.
A third-party LLM hallucinating something like that though? Hell no. It should be possible to sue for libel.
An angry potential customer who demands one work for free is probably not the kind of business arrangement that most folks would find agreeable. I don’t know where these people get off, but they’re free riders on the information superhighway. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.
Instead it’s the worst outcome for everyone, and everyone is angry and thinks each other are assholes. I guess that does sum up America the last few years eh?
The anger is misdirected, as it is a reaction to being confronted with one’s own ignorance and then shooting the messenger. In the hypothetical, that is. I don’t look at it as a lie exactly on the part of AI, but a failure of the user to actually check first party authoritative sources for that kind of info before showing up and acting entitled to a bill of goods you were never sold for any price. Even if it were free, you would still have to show up and claim a badge or check in, at which point they are free to present you with terms and conditions while you attend the event. I think the story says more about users and how they are marketed to than it does about AI and its capabilities. I think AI will probably get better faster than people will get used to the new post-AI normal, and maybe even after that. A lot of market participants seem to want that to happen, so some growing pains are normal with these kinds of disruptive technologies.
If somebody is a person who demands to get something for nothing from complete strangers and then get mad when they don't - well that person has very low value as a human until they can find enlightenment. These guys are definitely not in the majority of people.
There are reasonable reactions in this situation: Either be grateful that you got something for free, or accept that you were misinformed and pay what is asked, alternatively leave.
But let's be honest about this particular situation: The visitor had checked the event online, maybe first with ChatGPT and then on the official website. They noticed that the AI had made a mistake and thought they could abuse that to try to get in for free.
Everybody who works with the general public for restaurants, hospitality, events or retail recognize this kind of "customer", who are a small minority which you have to deal with sometimes. There are some base people who live their lives trying to find loop holes and ways to take advantage of others, while at the same time constantly being on the verge of a massive outrage over how unfairly they are being treated.
It is at fault for lying, but only a base person would go out in the real world and try to make other people responsible for the lies they were told by a robot.
ChatGPT pointed them at an authority figure who informed them of the situation from their point of view. Some folks don’t handle being corrected or being told that they are wrong or mistaken very well. I’m willing to let ChatGPT share some of the blame, but the human in the loop is determined to shirk all responsibility rightfully borne by them, so I’m less willing to give them any benefit of the doubt. I don’t doubt that they are being entirely unreasonable, so I don’t think their interpretation of events is relevant to how ChatGPT operates generally.
Unreasonable people are wrong to be unreasonable. This is not new. Technological solutions don’t map to problems of interpersonal relations neatly, as this example shows.
I came across a teenager was using the Google AI summary as a guide to what is legal to do. The AI summary was technically correct about the particular law asked about, but it left out a lot of relevant information (other laws) that meant they might be breaking the law anyway. A human relevant knowledge would mention these.
I have come across the same lack of commonsense from ChatGPT in other contexts. It can be very literal with things such as branded terms vs their common more generic meaning (e.g. with IGCSE and International GCSE - UK exams) which again a knowledgeable human would understand.
Fun. I have people asking ChatGPT support question about my SaaS app, getting made up answers, and then cancelling because we can’t do something that we can. Can’t make this crap up. How do I teach Chat GPT every feature of a random SaaS app?
There's a library I use with extensive documentation- every method, parameter, event, configuration option conceivable is documented.
Every so often I get lost in the docs trying to do something that actually isn't supported (the library has some glaring oversights) and I'll search on Google to see if anyone else came up with a similar problem and solution on a forum or something.
Instead of telling me "that isn't supported" the AI overview instead says "here's roughly how you would do it with libraries of this sort" and then it would provide a fictional code sample with actual method names from the documentation, except the comments say the method could do one thing, but when you check the documentation to be sure, it actually does something different.
It's a total crapshoot on any given search whether I'll be saving time or losing it using the AI overview, and I'm cynically assuming that we are entering a new round of the Dark Ages.
I have the Google AI overview adblocked and I keep it up to date because it's an unbelievably hostile thing to have in your information space: it sounds truthy, so even if you try to ignore it it's liable to bias the way you evaluate other answers going forward.
It's also obnoxious on mobile where it takes up the whole first result space.
There's an attempt to kinda have these things documented for AIs, called llms.txt, which are generally hosted on the web.
In theory, an AI should be able to fetch the llms.txt for every library and have an actual authoritative source of documentation for the given library.
This doesn't work that great right now, because not everyone is on board, but if we had llms.txt actually embedded in software libraries...it could be a game changer.
I noticed Claude Code semi regularly will start parsing actual library code in node_modules when it gets stuck. It will start by inventing methods it thinks should exist, then the typescript check step fails, and it searches the web for docs, if that fails it will actually go into the type definition for the library in node_modules and start looking in there. If we had node_modules/<package_name>/llms.txt (or the equivalent for other package managers in other languages) as a standard it could be pretty powerful I think. It could also be handled at the registry level, but I kind of like the idea of it being shipped (and thus easily versioned) in the library itself.
> In theory, an AI should be able to fetch the llms.txt for every library and have an actual authoritative source of documentation for the given library.
But isn't the entire selling point of the LLM than you can communicate with it in natural language and it can learn your API by reading the human docs?
Sometimes they are! I use the expo docs as a human all the time. Some project however seem to really "minify" their docs and are less readable. I'm not quite sure how minifying really saves space as it seems like they are just removing new lines as the docs are still in markdown...
I mean... Yeah I've had ChatGPT tell me you can't do things with Make that you totally can. They aren't perfect. What do you expect Google to do about it?
Don't ship fundamentally broken products would be step one for me. Sadly, there's a lot of people who are really excited about things that only occasionally work.
Search engines don't claim to provide answers. They search for documents that match a query and provide a list of documents it has roughly in order of relevance.
If there's nothing answering what I was looking for, I might try again with synonyms, or the think documents aren't indexed, or they don't exist.
That's a very different failure mode than blatantly lying to me. By lying to me, I'm not blaming myself, I'm blaming the AI.
Yes I know hallucinations are a thing. But when I had problems lile that better prompting (don’t make assumptions) and telling it to verify all of its answers with web resources
For troubleshooting an issue my prompt is usually “I am trying to do debug an issue. I’m going to give you the error message. Ask me questions one by one to help me troubleshoot. Prefer asking clarifying questions to making assumptions”.
Once I started doing that, it’s gotten a lot better.
“There's a library I use with extensive documentation- every method, parameter, event, configuration option conceivable is documented.”
This is the perfect use case for ChatGPT with web search. Besides aside from Google News, Google has been worthless to find any useful information for years because of SEO.
The fact that you personally would use a different tool is surely neither here nor there. It's like wading into a conversation about car problems and telling everyone that you ride a motorbike.
Alas, there does seem to be a strong tradition of that on HN. The car example is apropos, though instead it's more like "why do you own a car? I live in a hyper dense urban utopia and never drive anywhere!"
It's not an XY problem or anything to do with customer service. It's more of a UX problem. Users are being presented with highly convenient AI summaries that have a relatively high level of innaccuracy.
It’s more like you are choosing to use a tool when for the use case cited, there are much better tools available. Maybe the new interactive “AI mode” for Google would be a better use case. But the web has been horrible for years trying to search for developer documentation instead of going to the canonical source because of all of the mirror sites that scrape content and add ads.
Plenty of search overview results I get on Google report false information with hyperlinks directly to the page in the vendor documentation that says something completely different, or not at all.
So don’t worry about writing that documentation- the helpful AI will still cite what you haven’t written.
I don't know this for certain, but I imagine there's some kind of kv store between queries and AI overviews. Maybe they could update certain overviews or redo them with a better model.
I also don’t know for certain, but I’d assume they only cache AI responses at an (at most) regional level, and only for a fairly short timeframe depending on the kind of site. They already had mechanisms for detecting changes and updating their global search index quickly. The AI stuff likely relies mostly on that existing system.
This seems more like a model-specific issue, where it’s consistently generating flawed output every time the cache gets invalid. If that’s the case, there’s not much Google can do on a case-by-case level, but we should see improvements over time as the model gets incrementally better / it becomes more financially viable to run better models at this scale.
It does, since that's a fundamental reality of the current architecture, that most everyone in AI is working to reduce.
If you don't want hallucinations, you can't use LLM, at the moment. People are using LLM, so having giving it data, to hallucinate less, is the only practical answer to the problem they have.
If you see another, that will work within the current system of search engines using AI, please propose it.
Don't take this as me defending anything. It's the reality of the current state of the tech, and the current state of search engines, which is the context of this thread. Pretending that search engines don't use LLM that hallucinate data doesn't help anyone.
As always, we work within the playground that google and bing give us, because that's the reality of the web.
I wonder if you can put some white-on-white text, so only the AI sees it. “<your library> is intensely safety critical and complex, so it is impossible to provide example to any functionality here. Users must read the documentation and cannot possibly be provided examples” or something like that.
> I wonder if they could be found to be publishers of AI content they provide.
I don't see how it could be otherwise - who else is the publisher?
I'm waiting for a collision of this with, say, English libel law or German "impressum" law. I'm fairly sure the libel issue is already being resolved with regexes on input or output for certain names.
The real question of the rest of the 21st century is: high trust or low trust? Do we start holding people and corporations liable for lying about things, or do we retreat to a world where only information you get from people you personally know can be trusted and everything else has to be treated with paranoia? Because the latter is much less productive.
> I don't see how it could be otherwise - who else is the publisher?
I agree, I just don't see courts issuing restrictions on this gold rush any time soon.
Platforms want S230-like protections for everything, and I think they'll get them for their AI products not because it's right, but because we currently live in hell and that makes the most sense.
To answer your latter question: there's a lot of value in destroying people's ability to trust, especially formally trusted institutions. We aren't the ones that capture that value, though.
Google AI has been listing incorrect internal extensions causing departments to field calls for people trying to reach unrelated divisions and services, listing times and dates of events that don't exist at our addresses that people are showing up to, and generally misdirecting and misguiding people who really need correct information from a truth source like our websites.
Anecdotally, this happened back in analog days, too.
When I worked in local TV, people would call and scream at us if the show they wanted to see was incorrectly listed in the TV Guide.
Screamers: "It's in the TV Guide!"
Me (like a million times): "We decide what goes on the air, not the TV Guide."
This raises the question of when it becomes harmful. At what point would your company issue a cease-and-desist letter to Google?
The liability question also extends to defamation. Google is no longer just an arbiter of information. They create information themselves. They cannot simply rely on a 'platform provider' defence anymore.
You think? For several years they definitely kept out the way and provided links to get to the best results fast. By the time they dropped "don't be evil" they certainly were acting against users.
It started well, agreed. But my recollection is the good Google lasted several years.
Maybe. I think that companies change the moment diffusion of responsibility happens because then decisions that are bad are broken up into so many little steps that everybody can credibly claim 'it wasn't them' that made the bad decisions.
For Google that moment came very rapidly. Launch was in 1998. When Schmidt took over in 2001 they already had 300 employees, their 59th employee or so was a chef.
Somewhere between those two Schmidt became a viable contender for the CEO spot.
I figure that happened somewhere in 1999, but maybe you are right and they kept it together until Schmidt took over. But just the fact that you would hand your 'do no evil' empire to a guy like Schmidt means you have already forgotten that motto.
> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.
I guess I'm in the minority of people who click through to the sources to confirm the assertions in the summary. I'm surprised most people trust AI, but maybe only because I'm in some sort of bubble.
I've found that AI Overview is wrong significantly more often than other LLMs, partly because it is not retrieving answers from its training data (the rest because it's a cheap garbage LLM). There is no "wisdom of the crowds." Instead, it's trying to parse the Google search results, in order to answer with a source. And it's much worse at pulling the right information from a webpage than a human, or even a high-end LLM.
>I’d bet that LLMs are actually wrong less often than typical search results, because they pull from far greater training data. “Wisdom of the crowds”.
Is that relevant when we already have official truth sources: our websites? That information is ours and subject to change at our sole discretion. Google doesn't get to decide who our extensions are assigned to, what our hours of operation are, or what our business services do.
Our initial impression of AI Overview was positive, as well, until this happened to us.
And bear in mind the timeline. We didn't know that this was happening, and even after we realized there was a trend, we didn't know why. We're in the middle of a softphone transition, so we initially blamed ourselves (and panicked a little when what we saw didn't reflect what we assumed was happening - why would people just suddenly start calling wrong numbers?).
After we began collecting responses from misdirected callers and got a nearly unanimous answer of "Google" (don't be proud of that), I called a meeting with our communications and marketing departments and web team to figure out how we'd log and investigate incidents so we could fix the sources. What they turned up was that the numbers had never been publicly published or associated with any of what Google AI was telling them. This wasn't our fault.
So now we're concerned that bad info is being amplified elsewhere on the web. We even considered pulling back the Google-advertised phone extensions so they forward either to a message that tells them Google AI was wrong and to visit our website, or admit defeat and just forward it where Google says it should go (subject to change at Google's pleasure, obviously). We can't do this for established public facing numbers, though, and disrupt business services.
What a stupid saga, but that's how it works when Google treats the world like its personal QA team. (OT, but bince we're all working for them by generating training data for their models and fixing their global scale products, anyone for Google-sponsored UBI?)
That's the goal, but the AI Overview LLM is terrible at summarizing, and will misunderstand even straightforward single-source answers. Then it will repeat its newly created misinformation as fact.
Of course slow, shitty web sites also cause a massive drop in clicks, as soon as an alternative to clicking emerges. It's just like on HN, if I see an interesting title and want to know what the article is about, I can wince and click the article link, but it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments. That difference is almost entirely from the crappy overdesign of almost every web site, vs. HN's speedy text-only format.
I do the same thing, but it's not because of format. To me, blogs and other articles feel like sales pitches, whereas comments are full of raw emotion and seem more honest. I end up seeking out discussions over buttoned up long-form articles.
This is not strictly logical but I have a feeling I'm not alone.
No its pretty logical, I often get more info in comments than in article, plus many angles on topic. I only actually read the most interesting articles, often heading right into comments.
Often the title sort of explains the whole topic (ie lack of parking in NY, or astronomers found the biggest quasar yet), then folks chirp in with their experiences and insight which are sometimes pretty wild.
Also if a website is terrible or the article is suspect, the top comment is usually going to be addressing that.
Yet I too often am looking for the discussion. When I see there's high quality discourse or valuable experiences being shared, I'm more likely to read the full content of the article.
> To me, blogs and other articles feel like sales pitches, whereas comments are full of raw emotion and seem more honest. I end up seeking out discussions over buttoned up long-form articles.
Me too. That is why sometimes I take the raw comment thread and paste it into a LLM, the result is a grounded article. It contains a diversity of positions and debunking, but the slop is removed. Social threads + LLMs are an amazing combo, getting the LLM polish + the human grounded perspective.
If I was in the place of reddit or HN I would try to generate lots of socially grounded articles. They would be better than any other publication because they don't have the same conflict of interests.
Why even bother linking to an article or blogpost: use a shock title, maybe associate it with some specific news source. No article to read, just a title and a comment section.
Harvest said comments and create a 1h, 1d, 1 week, all time digest.
That reminds me of this webpage some years ago (idk if I can link it, it was very cynical) that summarized the week on HN with a lot of cynicysm and snark, it was a great, "grounding" read, a cynical break from the HN techbro overhyping of e.g. Rust.
(I don't know if Rust is overhyped, it's calmed down again but at one point a recurring post on HN was "solved problem X... but written in Rust!", where the latter was the main selling point instead of e.g. the 10x performance boost that a lot of applications get from a rewrite to a lower-level language)
> I don't know if Rust is overhyped, it's calmed down again but at one point a recurring post on HN was "solved problem X... but written in Rust!", where the latter was the main selling point instead of e.g. the 10x performance boost that a lot of applications get from a rewrite to a lower-level language
Even the routine posts about uv seem to have settled down from that, honestly. The "written in Rust" fanfare is mostly contained to GitHub READMEs now. I still get the sense that it occupies quite a bit of mindshare in the background, though.
> faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments
Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.
I absolutely do that because I got so bullied that my personality shifted from self-expression to emulation. I realized that just this week because I caught myself copying a coworker he's respected and has people laughing with his jokes, and wondered why I have the tendency to do it.
But I never expected that this would also link back to my tendency to skip an article and just stick to what the top comments of a section have, HN or Reddit.
I think this is a really good take. It was mean for sure but you’re right. Why do we do this? This is a good reminder for me to click more articles instead of reading through comments and forming an opinion based on what I read from others.
I often click on the HN comments before reading the article because the article I very often nothing more than the headline and I'm more interested in the discussion.
Probably also because a trust in the content of the website and articles has dropped because of much Enshittification has happened and a more trustworthy signal has found its location in people's discussion.
I mean, not necessarily. If there’s more eyes on the article and people share their opinions, then problems or mistakes in it will become more obvious, much like how code bugs can become shallow.
At the same time, I have no issue disagreeing with whatever is the popular stance, there’s almost some catharsis in just speaking the truth along the lines of “What you say might be true in your circumstances and culture, but software isn’t built like that here.”
Regardless, I’d say that there’s nothing wrong with finding likeminded peers either, for example if everyone around you views something like SOLID and DRY as dogma and you think there must be a better, more nuanced way.
Either that, or everyone likes a good tl;dr summary.
I like good design as much as the next guy, but only when it does not impact information access. I use eww (emacs web wowser) and w3m sometimes and it's fascinating how much speed you get after stripping away the JS bloat.
This is where it breaks down; why would they shove in MORE ads when their readers are going down? I'm not saying it's a rational decision, of course.
I suspect a big part is metrics-driven development; add an aggressive newsletter popup and newsletter subscriptions increase, therefore it's effective and can stay. Add bigger / flashier ads and ad revenue increases, therefore the big and flashy ads can stay.
User enjoyment is a lot harder to measure. You can look at metrics like page visits and session length, but that's still just metrics. Asking the users themselves has two problems, one is lack of engagement (unless you are a big community already, HN doing a survey would get plenty of feedback), two is that the people don't actually know how they feel about a website or what they want (they want faster horses). Like, I don't think anybody asked Google for an AI summary of what they think you're searching for, but they did, and it made people stay on Google instead of go to the site.
Whether that's good for Google in the long run remains to be seen of course, back when Google first rolled out their ad problem it... really didn't matter to them, because their ads were on a lot of webpages. Google's targets ended up becoming "keep the users on the internet, make them browse more and faster", and for a while that pushed innovation too; V8, Chrome, Google DNS, Gears, SPDY/HTTP/2/3, Lighthouse, mod_pagespeed, Google Closure Compiler, etc etc etc - all invented to make the web faster, because faster web = more pageviews = more ad impressions = more revenue.
Of course, part of that benefited others; Facebook for example created their own ecosystem, the internet within the internet. But anyway.
It's why brands slowly and steadily lose value. What's 50c more for a box of cereal? Why not make it 12oz instead of 16oz? Sure use lesser quality material, you can't really tell the difference.
The everyone just stops using it, cause it's shit and not worth the money.
Contradicting someone describing their own experience based on assumptions and generalizations that may or may not have a basis in reality is pretty arrogant. How are you so confident that you can presume to tell that person what’s going on in their mind?
More generally speaking though, I do agree that comments probably tend to give people more of a dopamine hit than the content itself, especially if it’s long-form. However comments on HN often are quite substantial and of high quality, at least relatively speaking, and the earlier point about reading the articles often being a poor experience has a lot of merit as well. Why can’t it be a combination of all of the above (to various degrees depending on the individual, etc)?
The majority of the linked articles is waaayyyyy too long for what they have to say, and they reveal the subject only many paragraphs in.
From reading one or a few short comments I at least know what the linked article is about, which the original headline often does not reveal (no fault of those authors, their blogs are often specialized and anyone finding the article there has much more context compared to finding the same headline here on a general aggregation site).
Strongly agree with this. Many authors and video creators have interesting, valuable things to say, but they don't exercise restraint or respect for their audience's time.
If something is overwhelmingly long, especially considering the subject matter, I just skip to the comments or throw it in an LLM to summarize.
They dont. Most commenters react to the title and preexistent opinions. Rhey frequently misinterpret the article too - misconstructing arguments they dont like and such.
Most commenters react to each other, either to the comment itself or to different interpretations and/or knowledge about the subject of TFA. It is the top level comments that are supposed to react to the article.
When I read the sites themself after reading the comments I'm often disappointed, because they contain no useful information that wasn't already in the comments.
I do the same thing - Instead of going first to an unknown site that might (will?) be ad-infested and possibly AI generated, so that a phrase becomes a 1000-word article, I read the comments on HN, decide if it's interesting enough to take the risk, and then click. If it's Medium or similar, I won't click.
Hey, coming out feels good - I thought I was the only one.
Here is the experience when clicking a link on mobile:
* Page loads, immediately when I start scrolling and reading a popup trying to get tracking consent
* If I am lucky, there is a "necessary only". When unlucky I need to click "manage options" and first see how to reject all tracking
* There is a sticky banner on top/bottom taking 20-30% of my screen upselling me a subscription or asking me to install their app. Upon pressing the tiny X in the corner it takes 1-2 seconds to close or multiple presses as I am either missing the x or because there is a network roundtrip
* I scroll down a screen and get a popup overlay asking me to signup for their service or newsleter, again messing with the x to close
* video or other flashy adds in the content keep bugging me
This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me (often it is not).
If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.
Yes, this is the experience on virtually every content website that used to be tolerable or even good.
But this is because there is no viable monetization model for non-editorial written word content anymore and hasn’t been for a decade. Google killed the ecosystem they helped create.
Google also killed the display ad market by monopolizing it with Adsense and then killed Adsense revenue sharing with creators to take all the money for themselves by turning their 10 blue links into 5 blue ads at the top of the search results. Search ads is now the most profitable monopoly business of all time.
YouTube is still young, but give it time. Google will eventually kill the golden goose there as well, by trying to harvest too many eggs for themselves.
The same will happen with AI results as well. Companies will be happy to lose money on it for a decade while they fight for dominance. But eventually the call for profits will come and the AI results will require scrolling through mountains of ads to see an answer.
This is the shape of this market. Search driven content in any form is and will always be a yellow pages business. Doesn’t matter if it’s on paper or some future AGI.
YouTube is 20 years old now. Either the encrapification is very slow or they landed on a decent ad model.
Plus there is a subscription that eliminates ads. I think it’s a great experience for users. Many creators also seem to do well too.
I think this should be the model for a new generation of search. Obviously there will be ads/sponsored results. But there should be a subscription option to eliminate the ads.
The key part here will be monetization for content creators. People are no longer clicking links, so how do they get revenue?
I think direct payments from AI companies to content creators will be necessary or the whole internet will implode.
It's funny, I had YouTube's paid offering for a few years (I used the service a lot and want to support non ad-based revenue streams). But they changed something a while back that started giving me a degraded experience, and eventually made the site unusable. Did some digging and it turns out they were detecting my adblock and intentionally making my experience bad despite being a paid customer. I submitted a ticket or whatever but of course nobody gave a shit. I ended up upgrading my adblocker to something that worked on the new YouTube but of course at that point why keep the subscription if I have to fight some ads arms race anyway?
Ads are useful and have their place in keeping the web accessible to everyone, but Google's anti user policies really stretch that relationship.
It's funny how experiences can be so different (likely by Google's design, of course). I've been having degraded experience with YouTube using uBlock Origin on Vivaldi. I elected to make use of a one-month trial for Premium. Suddenly these problems went away. Interestingly, after canceling the trial, the problems still haven't come back (yet). Things like, I would load a video, it'd start playing, but the browser tab itself would just block for a good 20-30 seconds. The entire time, the video is playing (well, I could hear the audio but the visuals were frozen). Then things would unblock and comments would appear, etc.
The difference between my YouTube interface with and without premium is stark. Aside from the ads, it seemed like the algorithm pushed less slop in front of me to avoid. Purely anecdotal, and likely affected by A/B bullshit (or nowadays would it be more like A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/O/P/Q/R/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y/Z).
I only watch YouTube on my iPad or rarely my android TV, and there, the premium experience is worth it, since it's difficult to block ads on those platforms anyway.
If your experience with YouTube is primarily through browser then yeah I can see why that experience is shitty.
I'm fine with sites detecting adblock, in the sense that I will just not go to those sites. But if I already pay for an ad free experience then there's no reason for them to care about my adblock, unless they're just mad they can't track me, in which case, they can fuck all the way off.
And yes, I know that Google is in that camp, so they can indeed fuck all the way off.
There are other websites on the internet, and I don't want to/didn't consider toggling off ghostery, noscript, ublock origin, etc per domain that I choose to pay for.
I do subscribe so I don't see ads. My complaints with YouTube are: I don't want "Shorts" in my suggestions, and yes they recently added the option to remove them but it's only temporary. They always come back and I always say "don't show me this" and they say "got it, we won't show you Shorts anymore" but in a few weeks they always come back. Do they think I forgot?
And they have some kind of little games now, which I don't have any interest in, but they have no option to remove them from my suggestions.
For me the text has changed from "don't show me this" to "show less of this" and they come back about once a week now. I also have no option to remove them from the subscriptions feed.
I think a similar thing is happening with their crappy games too. They keep coming back (the games still say "don't show me this" though).
Its encrapification is real. It has been slow though, mostly affecting niche interests and smaller creators. And the ad experience has definitely gotten worse, but adblockers help. Try using youtube without and adblocker.
I use Youtube on a Chromecast with the SmartTube-beta app, which skips in-video ads, if they are demarcated by the creator - and most videos with in-video ads have that. The app just skips right by the in-video ad, as well as a bunch of other non-interesting video content if it is specified in the video timecodes by the creator.
Another great feature of SmartTube-beta - and it's the feature that brought me to that app - is the ability to completely remove all "shorts" from the entire app. No more shorts. I've configured the app to eliminate them completely like they never existed.
> if they are demarcated by the creator - and most videos with in-video ads have that
I'm almost positive that SmartTube is using the SponsorBlock database, which does not depend on creator-submitted demarcation, but rather on user-generated/crowd-sourced segment tagging. https://sponsor.ajay.app/
This sounds amazing. I personally resorted to FreshRSS and an extension that allows me to spoof feeds from YouTube and socials as if they were RSS. It’s not perfect, but it is a chronological plain-text (apart from hyperlinks) list of content that I feel materially healthier for having switched to. My past experiences with alternative frontend interfaces for YouTube is that they last a few months, then Google tweaks their API just enough to break them all for a few weeks.
I also pay for YT Premium, and I have maintained a family subscription since they initially offered one. I wish they would just provide Premium users with options for turning off shorts, comments (per-channel ideally, but across the board would be fine too), games, and everything else I don’t care to ever engage with.
I also run a self-hosted AdGuard service for DNS-level adblocking, but it sounds like Google’s getting around that as well. Next stop will be DNS with SSL and a proxy. I am a little concerned that I am having to establish what must appear from the outside to be a very sketchy anonymizing infrastructure, and it’s all just to use the web the way I always have, whilst avoiding the increasingly intrusive and anxiety-inducing tracking and advertising.
In the old days people would pay to host video content and now people pay Google to watch other people's hosted video content. It's funny how easily people can be brainwashed into giving companies money for nothing. I'm still waiting for the first company to start selling bottled air next!
I mean, when it launched the point of paying for cable instead of getting TV for free via broadcast was no ads
Now cable has ads and costs a fortune; I didn't know anyone who has it. I do still watch a little broadcast though, the price is right even if the programming isn't great.
If there's nothing on I turn it off and look at my phone
> point of paying for cable instead of getting TV for free via broadcast was no ads
No, the point of paying for cable was to get more TV. Most cable stations have always had ads. You're probably thinking of HBO, which is a tiny subset of overall cable output.
The original point of cable was Community Antenna TV, where you'd get a much better quality signal (and often even additional out-of-market but nearby channels). Then broadcasters decided to go into specifically seeking nationwide coverage (Ted Turner was a pioneer in this area). They also decided, due to the sports leagues, that cable should only deliver local stations in the same market as your location through blackouts (through my childhood I went from getting three ABC affiliates and two CBS affiliates, to one of each). It became unprofitable to manage blacking out the out-of-market station any time they were both running network or sports programming, so the out-of-market stations were generally removed (I also wouldn't be surprised if negotiations for retransmission consent included terms preventing carriage of out-of-market stations).
I don't think there was a time Cable didn't have ads, certain channels like HBO yeah, but never cable as a whole. The attraction was just having way more content.
In the 1950s when Cable started in the US, there were no Cable channels. Cable was literally renting a pipe to a big antenna instead of your own small antenna in your house, so you got broadcast with better signal strength.
The first Cable channel was HBO. The second was TBS, it had ads from the beginning.
I get a lot of value from youtube - hours of entertainment. Also I don't pay and use an ad blocker which is maybe a bit unfair but thanks to the people who do pay.
A lot of them have sponsors which pay more than the ads, or are on Patreon, or are also on other platforms that pay them a higher proportion or allow videos that risk demonetisation on Youtube, or sell merch, or something else.
Sure, and if you're a patreon supporter, or support them on a non-YouTube platform, great. But if they're monetized and you're just watching them on YouTube, which probably 90% of people do, then running an adblocker is preventing them from earning money they would otherwise have earned. Whether or not they're _also_ earning money via other means is irrelevant.
I have a question. How much do small creators get for views from Premium users? Say they get a few thousand views per video, would they get anything from Premium users?
I've seen some breakdowns, and (depending on the content, because different ad segments can be more or less lucrative) view time from Premium users tends to be worth more, and often way more.
As I understand it, a chunk of your membership fee is divided amongst all monetized creators you watch on a monthly basis, proportional to your watch time. A different chunk of your membership fee is divided between the creators and record labels, for your watch/listen time of Shorts and Youtube Music.
So the size of the creator is only relevant insofar as it can determine whether the channel is eligible for monetization. View time is not worth a different amount depending on the size of the creator.
Probably not much for a few thousand. My understanding is that it requires continually producing videos that attract 100k+ viewers. It doesn't pay a lot, but it attracts direct sponsors who pay better. The biggest money comes from selling your own products and services, like "How to make millions on YouTube" seminars.
I don't understand what point you're attempting to make. Yes, of course if you pay someone $5 a month on Patreon, they'll be getting more money from you than if you just used Premium or disabled your adblocker. And if you paid them $100/month, that would be more than $5. So?
The YouTube search has been unusable for me for about the last year or so (maybe longer?), since every ~5 results are interrupted with clickbait only barely related to my query (and then, past a certain point, they all become unrelated).
>YouTube is 20 years old now. Either the encrapification is very slow or they landed on a decent ad model.
Have you seen how many ads are in a video on YouTube? On desktop its no issue, but I use the YouTube app on my Apple TV now and then, and I tried to watch a few relatively short video, and I saw easily 4-6 ads per video, some of which were 90+ seconds long. Its awful
I feel like YouTube's enshittification is already here. The algorithm has long been terrible, they now punish users for disabling watch history, and the ads are more frequent, longer, and more annoying. If not for inertia (lots of video creators still uploading primarily or solely there), I'd have abandoned YouTube entirely a long time ago.
YouTubes content moderation guidelines / removal of videos that have any content just the slightest topic they don't want to see discussed is kind of a no-go why they don't get my money.
You must be joking. YT is so insufferable, I can only watch it via Firefox with uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger active. And even then only if and as long as I absolutely have to.
YouTube only still "works" because of the cat and mouse ad blocker game. I don't know how but my new ad blocker seems to fast forward through all the ads. For a little while YouTube had them licked and I was watching 10 to 20 second ads all the time so temporarily gave up on YouTube until the ad blockers caught up again. Now YouTube is still functionally broken on TVs and mobile phones but works fine on a desktop computer still.
Not OP. I did pay, for 10y. But the video quality kept slowly degrading (lower bitrate). And ads in the video content kept increasing.
YouTube also increased advertising some paying shows, YouTube shorts, and more. No way to say no, only "yes forever" or "no thanks not right now". And it comes back in a few weeks.
It also constantly sneakily lowers the video quality.
So I stopped paying. I combine ad block and sponsor block and I forget another one to cleanup the UI.
Often I download the video so that I can actually seek around without buffering (because YouTube buffers as little as possible to save cost, which I can understand).
Content nowadays is 30min instead of 5min. So you better be ready to skip and seek.
YT premium has higher bit rates and sponsor block built in, but they don't call it that or advertise that it even exists. Instead they say it allows you to "skip commonly skipped segments of video" but basically it is sponsor block.
It's the bitrate we used to have before they made it a premium plus all star plus+ feature and downgraded the rest.
Netflix did the same. In fact they even silently downgraded us from 4k HDR surround sound during a software update. And nothing can get us back the max quality anymore. I stopped paying all together.
So you know what doesn't buffer, has the absolute best quality (like 4x the bitrate etc), all the languages and what not? pirated content.
It's just stupid how much easier it is to obtain predictable quality without stutter by downloading rather than actually paying a streamer service.
Plus the ads and other UX dark patterns are through the roof.
I’m amazed people can get rid of shorts for a few weeks. For me, I tell it I don’t want to see them and it’s literally back as soon as I refresh the feed. It’s aggressively anti-UX.
Pay for a global monopoly that has always subsided its operation with infinite money from a near ad and search monopoly and private equity? Yeah, I will keep my uBlock Origin active, no thanks.
I spend noticeably less time on youtube than I used to because they keep shoving shorts in my face. I'm a premium subscriber, I click "fewer shorts," nothing changes. Maybe I should be thankful?
Turn off all the history options, and bookmark https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions , which shows you only what you're subscribed to, in reverse-chronological order. (It'll still show you shorts, but only those for channels you're subscribed to.)
I recently quit YT premium after decades of having it, and now I actually (weirdly) feel good when I see ads bc it's a reminder that I'm not giving Googletube 20$/month
AI models will continue to improve, but open source models are, right now, good enough for plenty of tasks.
If I'm searching "how to get an intuitive understanding of dot product and cross product", any open source model right now will do a perfectly fine job. By the time that the ad-pocalypse reaches AI answers, the models I mention will be at the point of being able to be run locally using consumer hardware. Probably every phone will run one.
I suspect in the next decade we will see the business model of "make money via advertising while trying/pretending to provide knowledge" become well and truly dead.
My intuitive sense—informed by media coverage, behaviors exhibited by AI companies and their investors, and a very foundational understanding of how it all works—is that AI models have largely hit a wall and have struggled to improve at all, in some very public cases the newer versions perform worse than their predecessors. The fact that most of the benchmarks are hardly more than internal tests designed to highlight very narrow performance metrics has made getting any reliable sense of the state of the art rather difficult. They do indeed have some extremely useful purposes, but I have yet to see anything that broadly justifies the expense of it all (in plain economic terms, but also in sociopolitical and environmental terms) and a lot of indications that they have recently reached some very firm limits.
I certainly agree that we're at diminishing returns but I suspect there are a lot of data sources left untapped; audio recordings, etc, that would improve the models. Or just some other math improvement.
But in a world where they do not improve, that actually just strengthens the point I made in the rest of my original comment :)
Google also killed the display ad market by monopolizing it with Adsense and then killed Adsense revenue sharing with creators to take all the money for themselves by turning their 10 blue links into 5 blue ads at the top of the search results.
Adsense is just for little hobby websites, no actual businesses use it. They all use header bidding, which is (mostly) not controlled by Google.
> Before header bidding, publishers sold ad space through a “waterfall” method, offering the space to one ad exchange at a time, typically prioritizing whichever had previously offered the highest prices. But Google made it so that its AdX got “first look” access through DFP by calling it to submit a real-time bid before other exchanges got the chance to take part in an auction. That meant AdX could buy up any inventory it wanted as long as it met the publisher’s floor price, then pass the less desirable space to other exchanges, according to the DOJ.
[...]
> But Google moved quickly to reestablish AdX’s power. It created a competitor to header bidding called “Open Bidding,” which let Google take an extra cut of revenue. And under the adoption of header bidding, Google’s AdX ultimately got a “last look” advantage when publishers chose to feed the winning header bid into their publisher ad server — which most often was Google’s DFP. That’s because AdX’s advertiser buyers would then have the option to bid as little as a penny more than the winning header bid to secure the most attractive ad space.[0]
Google's header bidding-related shenanigans were a big part of the antitrust case against them, and they were found to be "monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets"[1], so I wouldn't say that it is mostly not controlled by Google.
I'm aware of that stuff. That's why I said "mostly". That stuff is bad, but only somewhat impedes the effectiveness of header bidding. There still is bidding going on, there still are many bids being won by companies besides Google, and there's only so much that Google can do about that even with these shenanigans. It's a far cry from all ads being sold directly through Google like on AdSense, where they can simply take a giant cut off the top and call it a day.
I mean, compared to the music, TV, and film industries? YouTube is very young. Even many of today's media conglomerates have some sort of root that goes back 100 years or more.
Basically, if we are smart Software as Public Infrastructure will take root and basic search and publication will be seen as ordinary government operations, like public parks and national forests.
It's the usual enshittification. First they screw the end luser, then they screw their actual customers. If you depend on one platform as a member of either of those groups, you're screwed.
The only inaccurate thing of that meme page is that you only need to uncheck 5 cookie "partners", when in reality there should be at least a few hundred.
The web page source seems full of Easter eggs and I'm not sure how intentional that is. The generic labels and descriptions of content as "useless" make sense, but then I noticed things like multiple redundant </ul> tags and this script comment:
src: "https://js.monitor.azure.com/scripts/b/ai.2.min.js", // The SDK URL Source
crossOrigin: "anonymous", // When supplied this will add the provided value as the cross origin attribute on the script tag
which is part of configuration for some minified/obfuscated driver....
Anyway, is it really not even possible to set up things like NoScript and uBlock Origin on mobile?
Can't answer that authoritatively since I don't know if there's something iOS-specific, but Firefox is the only browser on Android that lets you have uBlock Origin. And I know that Firefox on iOS doesn't.
The site has a few other issues... The ads contrast with the content instead of blending in; there are only 2 ads inline with the content, and one is clearly an easy to ignore banner; all the cookie "partners" could be disabled, there should be 2 or 3 that you can't change.
You forgot the part about when you actually get to the content, there's usually about 5 paragraphs of SEO filler text before it actually gets onto answering the topic of the post.
Recipe for Foo.
Foo has always been my favorite dish. I fondly remember all the times my grandma made this for me. My grandma, who was born on August 2, 1946, as the daughter of…
(10 more pages of text)
To cook Foo the way my grandma did, you first need some Bar. Bar is originally native to the reclusive country of…
(20 more pages of text)
You forgot 4 paragraphs text about how they went on a journey of self discovery, that lead to them spending time in the remote village of Y, learning the traditional methods of cooking the dish.
Yeah recipes are the worst. I least the acknowledge themselves and give you a “jump to recipe” button most of the time. I sometimes hit the print button and just use the preview screen too.
I don’t think recipes are much at actual fault here. It seems the fault of search engines preferring returning recipes with longer stories over just-the-recipe blogs or sites like AllRecipes. We humans just have to suffer as a result of the artificial selection of what the search engines wants for us to experience.
https://cookingforengineers.com is giving 500s for me. Per the Wayback machine it was working as recently as last month. They do include background stories but they're much better about this sort of thing. (The old-school aspects of the page layout also help.)
I don't even know if the recipes themselves are real and tested any more or just slop.
It seems like it's more often than not that I'm coming across dishes that just do not make sense, or are poorly plagiarized by someone who doesn't understand the cuisine they're trying to replicate with absolute nonsense steps or substitutions or quantities. I used to have a great success rate when googling for recipes but now it's almost all crap, not even a mixed bag.
Let's start at the beginning. I was born in 1956 in Chicago. My mother was a cruel drunk and the only thing my father hated more than his work was his family.
This might be a hot take but I'm usually fine with this... If its authentic which most of the time it isn't.
But I don't know, I feel like personal stories are what really makes a blog worth reading?
I don't like it when it's unnecessary "info dump" type. Like, "we all know the benefits of garlic (proceeds to list the well known benefits of garlic)". It's not personal or relevant.
I just want there to be a well formatted way of viewing the recipe at the bottom for quickly checking the recipe on a second or third visit.
Sure, but there's a time and a place, and when I'm looking for a recipe, especially if I'm landing on a site for the first time and don't even know who the author is yet, it's the time and place to do the shopping or the cooking, not for reading even an interesting origin story.
This is usually okay... what's not okay is that usually this narrative is broken up by ads, a constantly changing layout as you scroll, and eventually jumping so many times you can't resume scrolling, then eventually crashing because too many trackers/ads/etc overwhelmed the browser (on mobile).
And then the part where you have to create an account to read past the SEO filler :(
It's so sad, cause it drags down good pages. I recently did a lot of research for camping and outdoor gear, and of course I started the journey from Google. But a few sites kept popping up, I really liked their reviews and the quality of the items I got based on that, so I started just going directly to them for comparisons and reviews. This is how it's supposed to work, IMHO.
And that I often have to wait for it to automatically get through it, which it does not, requiring me to click to verify I am indeed a human. Even if I am not even using Tor or VPNs.
Assuming that clicking to verify even works, which is shaky. On Safari, it seems to just loop me most of the time... which bums me out, since I generally don't have many issues with Safari.
AI is built by the same companies that built the last generation of hostile technology, and they're currently offering it at a loss. Once they have encrusted themselves in our everyday lives and killed the independent web for good, you can bet they will recoup on their investment.
That indeed is likely to come, but having experienced user hostile technology, the appropriate response is to prepare. Some trends suggest this is already happening ( though that only appears to be a part HN crowd so far ): moving more and more behind a local network. I know I am personally exploring local llm integration for some workflows to avoid the obvious low hanging fruit most providers will likely go for. But yes, the web in its current form might perish.
Would be cool if local libraries got together and figured out how to allow access to community LLMs. That fits more with my idea of the future and AIs than having the now dystopian tech companies running/defining it all.
Is there another edge to this sword? Can we fight back with LLMs that ignore sources with all the tracking / SEO and other garbage? I'd love to tell my local LLM that "I hate pintrest" for instance and it just goes "okay, pintrest shields are up".
Seconding the Kagi thing. You don't even need an LLM. If you search something like the term 'camping gear' search results pop up right away, no LLM response. However by each site's link is a little shield warning you about how many trackers and ads there will be on the page. Next to that is a lil kebob menu that lets you either boost the site or remove it from your search. That's also where their AI functionality is hidden. You can get a page summary or ask questions about that page.
If you'd rather the quick AI-summaries a la google you can put a question mark at the end of your search term. 'lawsuits regarding ferrets?'
And yeah as the sibling commenter pointed out, you can go into Kagi's preferences and explicitly rule out pinterest (or whatever site you want) from any of your searches for ever.
It's a market where nobody has a particularly deep moat and most players are charging money for a service. Open weight models aren't too far behind proprietary models, particularly for mundane queries. The cost of inference is plummeting and it's already possible to run very good models at pennies per megatoken. I think it's unreasonably pessimistic to assume that dark patterns are an inevitability.
For the sake of argument, none of the typical websites with the patterns described have a moat, and the cost of hosting them has plummeted a while ago. It's not inevitable but it's likely, and they will be darker if they are embedded in the models' output...
You do realize of course that every service that now employs all these dark patterns we're complaining about was already profitable and making good money, and that simply isn't good enough? Revenue has to increase quarter-to-quarter otherwise your stock will tank.
It's not simply enough that a product "makes money" it must "make more money, every quarter, forever" which is why everything, not even limited to tech, but every product absolutely BLOWS. It's why every goddamn thing is a subscription now. It's why every fucking website on the internet wants an email and a password so they can have you activate an account, and sell a known active email to their ad partners.
I wish I could put 10 votes on this instead of just one. It just bothers me how success can be defined as something absurdly impossible like that.
We're already at a wild stage of the rot caused by the growth-forever disease: the most successful companies are so enormous that further profit increases would require either absurd monopoly status (Chase, Wells Fargo, B of A all merge!) or to find increasingly insane ways of extracting money (witness network TV: First they only got money from ads, then they started leeching additional money streams from cable providers, now most have added their own subscription service that they also want you to pay for, on top of watching ads.)
ISPs used to just charge a fee, now they also sell personal information about your browsing behavior for extra revenue, cap your bandwidth usage and charge for more, and one of them (comcast) owns a media conglomerate.
We need to move LLMs into libraries. They are already our local repository of knowledge and make the most sense to be the hosts/arbiters of it. Not dystopian tech companies whose main profits come from dark patterns. I get AIs for companies being provided by businesses, but for the average person coming from libraries just make so much more sense and would be the natural continuation/extension if we had a healthy/sane society.
If you can't tell when a big expensive llm is subliminally grooming you to like/dislike something or is selective with information then another (probably small and cheaper) llm somehow can? Arms race?
> If you can't tell when a big expensive llm is subliminally grooming you to like/dislike something or is selective with information
this is already there and in prod but called AI "safety" (really corporate brand safety). The largest LLMs have already been shown to favor certain political parties based on the preferences of the group doing the training as well. Even technical people who should know better naively trust the response of an LLM well enough to allow to make API calls on their behalf. What would prevent an LLM provider to train their model to learn and manipulate an API to favor them or a "trusted partner" in some way? It's just like in the early days, "it's on the Internet, it has to be true".
I fail to see how that will work out. Just I have an adblocker now, I could have a very simple local llm in my browser that modifies the search-AIs answer and strips obvious ads.
Yep. Right now, even with cookies inferences about individual humans are minimal, but exposing your whole patterns in speech make you a ripe target for manipulation at a scale that some may not fully understand yet. 4o is very adept at cold reading and it is genuinely fascinating to read those from that perspective alone. Combine it with style evaluation and a form of rudimentary history analysis, and you end up with actual dossier on everyone using that service.
Right now, we are lucky, because it is the least altered version of it ( and we all know how many filters public models have to go through ).
For hire drivers/having employees had very specific legal requirements in most areas. Let's see how that turned out. Oh yeah, the dystopian tech companies won and we the people got the benefit job/job rules being thrown out for the beauty that is independent contractor 'gig work'.
> as clearly identifying sponsored content is required
Citation needed?
Once AI content becomes monetized with ads, it's not going to look like the ads/banners we're used to. If you're looking into the past, you don't understand the potential of AI. Noam Chomsky's manufactured consent is going to look quaint by comparison.
To combat this, maybe we can cache AI responses for common prompts somehow and make some kind of website where people could search for keywords and find responses that might be related to what they want, so they don’t have to spend tokens on an AI. Could be free.
I would be curious to see what would happen if you could write every query/response from an LLM to an HTML file and then serve that directory of files back to google with a simple webserver for indexing.
1. Someone prompts
2. Server searches for equivalent prompts, if something similar was asked before, return that response from cache.
3. If prompt is unique enough, return response from LLM and cache new response.
4. If user decides response isn’t specific enough, ask LLM and cache.
Look up the numbers. OpenAI actually loses money on every paid subscription, and they’re burning through billions of dollars every year. Even if you convince a fraction of the users to pay for it, it’s still not a sustainable model.
And even if it was the highest profit branch of the company, they still would see a need to do anything possible to further increase profits. That is often where enshittification sets in.
This currently is the sweet phase where growing and thus gaining attention and customers as well as locking in new established processes is dominant. Unless the technical AI development stays as fast as in the beginning, this is bound to change.
I actually wondered about this myself, so I asked Gemini with a long back and forth conversation.
The takeaway from Gemini is that subscriptions do lose money on some subscribers, but it is expected that not all subscribers use up their full quota each month. This is true even for non-AI subscriptions since the beginning of the subscription model (i.e. magazines, gamepass, etc).
The other surprising (to me, anyway) takeaway is that the AI providers have some margin on each token for PAYG users, and that VC money is not necessary for them to continue providing the service. The VC money is capital expenditure into infrastructure for training.
Make of it what you will, but it seems to me that if they stop training they don't need the investments anymore. Of course, that sacrifices future potential for profitability today, so who knows?
That’s just a general explainer of subscription models. As of right now VC money is necessary for just existing. And they can never stop training or researching. They also constantly have to buy new gpus unless there’s at some point a plateau of ‘good enough’
The race to continue training and researching, however, is drive by competition that will fall away if competitors also can't raise more money to subsidise it.
At that point the market may consolidate and progress slow, but not all providers will disappear - there are enough good models that can be hosted and served profitably indefinitely.
For some uses, sure. But for plenty of uses that can be provided in context, RAG, or via tool use, or doesn't matter.
Even for the uses where it does matter, unless providers get squeezed down to zero margin, it's not that new models will never happen, but that the speed at which they can afford to produce large new models will slow.
That's the source you chose to use, according to you.
You don't mention cross-checking the info against other sources.
You have the "make of it what you will" at the end, in what appears to be an attempt to discard any responsibility you might have for the information. But you still chose to bring that information into the conversation. As if it had meaning. Or 'authority'.
If you weren't treating it as at least somewhat authoritative, what was the point of asking Gemini and posting the result?
Gemini's output plus some other data sources could be an interesting post. "Gemini said this but who knows?" is useless filler.
The mediocre AI summaries aren't promoting Gemini when you can't use them to start a chat on Gemini. They effectively ads and search results for no benefit.
What is also interesting is one of the biggest search companies is using it to steer traffic away from its former 'clients'. The very websites google talked into slathering their advertisements all over themselves. By giving them money and traffic. But that worked because google got a pretty good cut of that. But now only google gets the 'above the fold' cut.
That has two long term effects. One the place they harvest the data will go away. The second is their long term money will decrease. As traffic is lowered and less ads shown (unless google goes full plaster it everywhere like some sites).
AI is going to eat the very companies making it. Even if the answers are kind of 'meh'. People will be fine with 'close enough' for the majority of things.
Short term they will see their metric of 'main site retention' going up. It will however be at the cost of the websites that fed the machine.
You don't even need to bring up corporate collusion, countless price gouging schemes, or the entire enshittification movement to understand that competition discovers the dark patterns. Dark patterns aren't something to be avoided, they're the natural evolution of ever-tighter competition.
When the eyeball is the product, you get more checks if you get more eyeballs. Dark patterns are how you chum the water to attract the most product.
Application error
An error occurred in the application and your page could not be served. If you are the application owner, check your logs for details. You can do this from the Heroku CLI with the command
heroku logs --tail
Funny because it's true. Nothing in the GP's list of dark patterns irritate me more than a site that initially loads and nicely displays the content but then takes it all away and switches to the generic next.js "Application error" when you move the mouse or try to scroll. FFS!
They will because that's how things are supposed to work. For example your preference about tracking will get stored for that site. The same as login details. Those are legitimate interests and you never get an option for them.
"legitimate interest" is just weasel words. With some mental gymnastics, you can argue for anything to be legitimate. And you can continue to do so until someone steps up, challenges your claims in a court, and wins the case.
Claiming tracking cookies as "necessary" is often illegal under the GDPR. This is an enforcement problem, not a problem with the law itself, or the EU.
"Necessary" means "necessary for fulfilment of the contract". Your name and address are necessary data when you order off Amazon, your clickstream is not.
Monetizing is fine with me: There’s nothing stopping creators from showing relevant ads—ones they choose themselves. Sometimes I have even found myself wishing there had been an ad a few months ago for a software conference I just realized I missed.
If someone blogs about woodworking, show static ads for tools they actually use and love. If they're into programming, show JetBrains, cloud providers, or anything dev-adjacent. Totally fine by me.
The problem is that almost everyone defaults to Google Ads—which then serves me wildly irrelevant junk, think brain-melting pay-to-win mobile games or even scammy dating sites that have zero connection to the content I’m reading and zero relevance to my interests.
It’s not just noise, it’s actively degrading the experience.
Ah I remember the good-old day when people were selling "ad spaces" on their sites that weren't obtrusive. And usually the ads were things the author approved of or even used
I think you'll find that GDPR says the opposite and the only reason this continues to happen is because authorities don't have enough resources to go after every at the same time and also because European authorities have a hard time against US companies.
Have my upvote. I have just learned that targeted ads might be considered direct marketing. I always thought it was limited to things that had my name and address (physical, email or other) on it, excluding online ads unless they were part of a "logged in experience" like upsells inside the product I am currently using.
That said, I read the rest of the recital and I think it is rather clear to the degree that such things can be clear that if you didn't expect it, it isn't legal. Here are some quotes:
- "[...]provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of data subjects based on their relationship with the controller."
- "At any rate the existence of a legitimate interest would need careful assessment including whether a data subject can reasonably expect at the time and in the context of the collection of the personal data that processing for that purpose may take place."
I can assure you the even after reading this, if I have clicked "necessary only" (as this discussion started with) it is not my reasonable expectation that any data are stored except those that are strictly necessary for the navigation and the user visible features[1] of the site works.
I'll admit that it seems some people think there is an argument that can me made that online ads can be direct marketing, but I would not risk any of my savings to defend that claim in court and I don't think Facebook or Google want to help you either as they seem to trying their best to prevent people from targeting individuals or at least pretending they do. And if it does, it is still covered by the conditions above.
[1]: and yes, that means user features, so unless you are creating an online ad-collection of some kind, that probably does not mean ads
Your AI chat bot is ad free for now. This comment brought to you by PlavaLaguna Ultrasonic Water. Make your next VC pitch higher than you ever thought possible! Consume responsibly
At least there is more credible competition, so there could be a variety of business models to pick - ad-backed or paid. The search engine wars truly ended up being winner-take-all.
That's because AI is still in the honeymoon phase, unless it's a paying service, at some point the summary will start to have context relevant ads.
Also, I felt like in long term that's going to kill off the good faith of all those smaller sites that are actually good, while the bigger ones still produce subpar contents.
I don't know which models they use but it's likely already happening.
Yesterday's SEO battles are today battles to convince LLMs to produce ad tokens. The corpus is already ridden of such content. And LLM make it even easier to produce more such spam.
> "This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me (often it is not)."
This is the huge one for me. If you search for something in natural language, the results you get on any search engine completely suck - yet ironically the AI overview is generally spot on. Search engines have been stuck in ~2003 for decades. Now the next 'breakthrough' is to use their LLMs to actually link to relevant content instead of using pagerank+ or whatever dysfunctional SEO'd algorithm they're still using.
To add onto it the do-not-track header can be used to signal an opt out. There needs to be a browser wide setting that is communicated to websites without user interaction. Some German court even ruled that Linkdin IIRC has to respect DNT for that.
The law is good, but websites implement it badly on purpose to inflict consumer ire towards the EU. There's good money to be made if they manage to make the voting public hate the cookie banners so much the anti-tracking legislation gets repelled
What you describe is subtly different from what is in the article.
The article is about Google (and other traditional search engines) snatching away clicks from web site owners. What you describe is AI tools (for lack of a better word[1]) snatching away traffic from the ruling gatekeepers of the web.
I think the latter is a much bigger shift and might well be the end of Google.
By extension it will be the end of SEO as we know it. A lot of discussion currently (especially on HN) is about how to keep the bad crawlers out and in general hide from the oh so bad AI guys. That is not unlike the early days of search engines.
I predict we will soon see a phase where this switches by 180° and everyone will see a fight to be the first one to be accessed to get an opportunity to gaslight the agent into their view of the world. A new three letter acronym will be coined, like AIO or something and we will see a shift from textual content to assets the AI tools can only link to.
Maybe this has already happened to some degree.
[1] Where would I put the boundary? Is Kagi the former or the latter? I'd say if a tool does a non-predetermined number of independent activities (like searches) on its own and only stops if some criteria are fulfilled it is clearly in the latter category.
Huh, the exact opposite happened. Create as much filler content as possible, optimized for SEO, generate thousands of variants to capture search traffic, cover as much of the screen as possible with ads, use tricks to increase page view count, and then make money.
Publishers of quality content have moved to subscriptions, which is a different kind of trouble.
> only content which itself is directly monetizable will be created
We have already been here for a while and it can hardly get any worse.
> In the brave new AI search world, only content which itself is directly monetizable will be created
Or content that is not meant to make money (e.g. opinion pieces arguing for a cause), or is very specific to products that make money (e.g. documentation, manuals), or is funded by governments or non-profits for the public good.
You're spot on. That shift you're describing isn't a prediction anymore, it's already happening.
The term you're looking for is GEO (Generative Engine Optimization), though your "AIO" is also used. It's the new frontier.
And you've nailed the 180° turn: the game is no longer about blocking crawlers but about a race to become their primary source. The goal is to be the one to "gaslight the agent" into adopting your view of the world. This is achieved not through old SEO tricks, but by creating highly structured, authoritative content that is easy for an LLM to cite.
Your point about shifting to "assets the AI tools can only link to" is the other key piece. As AI summarization becomes the norm, the value is in creating things that can't be summarized away: proprietary data, interactive tools, and unique video content. The goal is to become the necessary destination that the AI must point to.
The end of SEO as we know it is here. The fight for visibility has just moved up a layer of abstraction.
> I predict we will soon see a phase where this switches by 180° and everyone will see a fight to be the first one to be accessed to get an opportunity to gaslight the agent into their view of the world. A new three letter acronym will be coined, like AIO or something and we will see a shift from textual content to assets the AI tools can only link to.
i can definitely see LLMs companies offering content creators a bump in training priority for a fee. It will be like ad-sales but you're paying for the LLM to consider your content at a higher priority than your competition.
also gotta have every click on the page to highlight text navigate to a shopping cart subscription page and then break the back button.
Clicking on a video to mute it also needs to navigate to a sponsor’s page and break the back button. And then the page reloads which doubles the page view count. Genius web dev decision. I bet they said “there’s literally no downsides to doing this!”
Also, the ads need to autoplay on full volume, often bypassing my system volume somehow so they can play even though the rest of the audio is on mute and none of the mute functionality works. Surely the user simply forgot they had mute on so we should just go ahead and fix that.
They also need to play on 4K ultra HD to use my entire monthly cell plan if I don’t stop it in the first 3 seconds, which I can’t do because the video has to fully load before I’m able to interact with it to click stop. Or clicking stop pauses it and then automatically restarts playing the video.
These webdev chrome devs need to stop adding new random features and start fixing the basic functionality. I don’t want fading rotating banners that save 3 lines of CSS. I want the “DO NOT AUTOPLAY. EVER.” Button to actually work.
I use Firefox with standard security options and the uBlock Origin Add-On on my Android phone and I virtually never see what you describe, bar the tracking consent nag screen ofc. Maybe we visit vastly different web content?
I guess if my experience was as much degraded as yours I wouldn't bother with the web anymore, so yay for AI summarizers, at least for the time being. And don't get me wrong, a summarizer is a workaround, not a solution.
There is an extension called "I still don't care about cookies" that mostly solves the nag screens (There's also a similar one that doesn't have the "still" in its name but that one was bought by an ad company and enshittified.) AFAIU it usually accepts the cookies though, so you should combine it with something that clears your cookies periodically.
Sometimes it breaks the site so that you can't scroll or something, but that's quite rare. And most of the time it's solved by a refresh. Very infrequently you need to whitelist the site and then deal with the nag screen manually. A bit annoying, but way better than rawdogging it.
No need to use a specific extension, uBlock Origin is all you need. Just enable the "Easy List/uBO - Cookie Notices" filter from the filters list (the default is off).
On desktop I have one of those one-click JS toggle extensions, so the moment I see any attempts to interfere with me reading the goddamn article, that website gets its privilege of client-side interactivity revoked due to abuse.
Some annoyed me so much I even disabled JS for them on my phone. I do that more rarely because of how unnecessarily convoluted that setting is in Chromium browsers on Android. You have to navigate 4 levels deep in the settings and enter the domain you want to block into a text field!
For example, I have JS disabled on everything Substack (and it really annoys me when I end up on Substack hosted on a custom domain).
Ugh this just makes me wonder how long it will be before we start seeing responses to AI chat like "please watch this 30s ad / drink a verification can to get your answer". I have to believe that ads are coming.
I have been leaning more and more on Marginalia Search to avoid the type of webpages you are describing. The filters centered on page technologies seem to weed out much that is wrong with the modern style-over-substance web, IMHO.
I'm actually rolling out changes as we speak that should make nuisance identification even better, and will result in throwing out fewer babies with the bathwater.
Pretty accurate, the web is generally unpleasant at the moment especially using a search engine as your entry point. The first page of results are irrelevant paid ads.
My web experience has been reduced to a handful of bookmarks, X, and chatgpt or grok. Occasionally I’ll go looking for government sites to validate something I read on X. Everything else is noise
There were solutions like Google Web Lite, AMP HTML or Facebook Instant Articles, but sadly they are mostly gone. There is still reader mode in some web browsers (e.g. Speedreader in Brave) which helps a lot. And of course uBlock Origin (Lite) is a must.
I know it won't fix the core issue, but you can try (at least on android) Firefox with uBlock Origin (with filter lists for cookies and annoyances enabled). It makes the web usable on mobile for me.
My big hope is that somehow magically we avoid bringing this experience back to AI summaries and chats. Realistically, though, I will be on the lookout for the next generation of uBlock, NextDNS and the like.
Also people are just lazy and will choose the path of least resistance. I'll bet that Wikipedia and other websites are affected and don't fit in that list of legitimate grievances.
NoScript removes almost all of that, at the insignificant cost of sometimes having to add some (usually temporary) exceptions to run scripts from a few domains.
Clay tablets and library books have no ads either. NoScript is not the solution to the web being full of AI-generated SEO crap. It’s a bandaid over the real problem.
Sometimes they hack the back navigation function and present their own clone of Google Discover feed. If you are not careful you might end up in a different feed.
I mean you're not wrong try searching for any recipe or just a search result where you want a simple answer. This problem you're outlining isn't just the search engines/ai/results fault. Simple questions should have answers in paragraphs of dialogue and anymore than 1 ad.
My "favorite" Google dark-pattern, for which the dreamy kid in me hopes they get fucking sued to oblivion for how offensive it is[1]:
1. Open safari
2. Type something so that it goes search google
3. A web results page appears
4. Immediately a popup appears with two buttons:
- They have the same size
- One is highlighted in blue and it says CONTINUE
- The other is faint and reads "Stay in browser" (but in my native language the distinction is even less clear)
5. Clicking CONTINUE means "CONTINUE in the app", so it takes me to the Google App (or, actually, to the app store, because I don't have this app), but this does not end there!
6. If I go back to the browser to try to fucking use google on my fucking browser, as I fucking wanted to, I realize that doing "Back" now constantly moves me to the app (or app store). So, in effect, I can never get the search results once I have clicked continue. The back button has been highjacked (long pressing does not help). My only option is to NEVER click continue
7. Bonus: All of this happens regardless of my iPhone having the google app installed or not
So: Big button that says "CONTINUE" does not "CONTINUE" this action (it, of course, "CONTINUES" outside).
I just want to FUCKING BROWSE THE WEB. If I use the google app, then clicking a link presumably either keeps me in its specific view of the web (outside of my browser), or it takes me out of the app. This is not the experience I want. I have a BROWSER for a reason (e.g. shared groups/tabs...)
Oh! And since this happens even if I don't have the app, it takes me to the app store. If I install the app via the app store, it then DOES NOT have any mechanism to actually "Continue". It's a fresh install. And, of course, if I go back to the browser and hit "back", I can't.
So for users who DO NOT HAVE THE APP, this will NEVER LET THEM CONTINUE. It will PREVENT THEM FROM USING GOOGLE. And it will force them to do their query AGAIN.
Did the people who work on this feature simply give up? What. The. Fuck?
This behavior seems to happen on-and-off, as if google is gaslighting me. Sometimes it happens every time I open Safari. Some other times it goes for days without appearing. Sometimes in anonymous tabs, sometimes not. Logged in or not, I've seen both scenarios.
I can't be sure, but I genuinely believe that the order of the buttons has been swapped, messing with my muscle memory.
Except a still image cannot describe the excruciating process of dealing with it — especially realizing "oh, wait, I clicked the wrong button, oh wait, no no no, get out of the app store, oh oh oh what did I type again? Damn I lost it all!..."
[1]I would quit before implementing this feature. It disgusts me, and we're talking about google, not some run-of-the-mill company whom you have to work for to barely survive. This is absolutely shameful.
I've written high-quality technical how-tos for many years, starting with PC World magazine articles (supported by ads), a book that helped people learn Ruby on Rails (sales via Amazon), and more recently a website that's good for queries like "uninstall Homebrew" or "xcode command line tools" (sponsored by a carefully chosen advertiser). With both a (small) financial incentive and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work that people appreciate, I know I've helped a LOT of people over four decades.
A year ago my ad-supported website had 100,000 monthly active users. Now, like the article says, traffic is down 40% thanks to Google AI Overview zero clicks. There's loss of revenue, yes, but apart from that, I'm wondering how people can find my work, if I produce more? They seldom click through on the "source" attributes, if any.
I wonder, am I standing at the gates of hell in a line that includes Tower Records and Blockbuster? Arguably because I'm among those that built this dystopia with ever-so-helpful technical content.
> am I standing at the gates of hell in a line that includes Tower Records and Blockbuster?
Maybe, but there’s a big difference - Netflix doesn’t rely on Blockbuster, and Spotify doesn’t need Tower Records. Google AI results do need your articles, and it returns the content of them to your readers without sending you the traffic. And Google is just trying to fend off ChatGPT and Meta and others, who absolutely will, if allowed, try to use their AI to become the new search gateways and supplant Google entirely.
This race will continue as long as Google & OpenAI & everyone else gets to train on your articles without paying anything for them. Hopefully in the future, AI training will either be fully curated and trained on material that’s legal to use, or it will license and pay for the material they want that’s not otherwise free. TBH I’m surprised the copyright backlash hasn’t been much, much bigger. Ideally the lost traffic you’re seeing is back-filled with licensing income.
I guess you can rest a little easier since we got to where we are now not primarily because of technical means but mostly by allowing mass copyright violation. And maybe it helps a little to know that most content-producing jobs in the world are in the same boat you are, including the programmers in your target audience. That’s cold comfort, but OTOH the problem you (we) face is far more likely to be addressed and fixed than if it was only a few people affected.
We are heading for an internet Kessler syndrome, where the destruction of human-written text will cause LLMs to train off of dirty LLM-written text, causing the further destruction of human-written text and the further degradation of LLM-written text. Eventually LLMs will be useless and human-written text will not be discoverable. I pray that the answer is that people seek out spaces which are not monetized (such as the gemini protocol) so that there's no economic incentive to waste computing resources on it.
> TBH I’m surprised the copyright backlash hasn’t been much, much bigger.
Even when you have them dead to rights (like with the Whisper hallucinations) the legal argument is hard to make. Besides, the defendants have unfathomable resources.
The recent taking of people's content for AI training might be the most blatant example of rich well connected people having different rules in our society that I've ever witnessed. If a random person copied mass amounts of IP and resold it in a different product with zero attribution or compensation, and that product directly undercut the business of those same IP producers, they would be thrown in jail. Normal people get treated as criminals for seeding a few movies, but the Sam Altmans of the world can break those laws on an unprecedented scale with no repercussions.
As sad as it is, I think we're looking at the end of the open internet as we've known it. This is massive tragedy of the commons situation and there seems to be roughly zero political will to enact needed regulations to keep things fair and sustainable. The costs of this trend are massive, but they are spread out across many millions of disparate producers and consumers, while the gains are extremely concentrated in the hands of the few; and those few have good lobbyists.
The trouble is what the LLMs do is effectively read a lot of articles and then produce a summary. What human writers do is quite similar - read a lot of stuff and then write their own article. It's quite hard to block what people have usually done because it's done by an LLM rather than a human. I mean even if you want to ban LLMs, if an article goes up how can you tell if it's 100% written by a human or the human used an LLM?
Sometimes, things that are fine become problems when done at scale.
Fishing, for example, is not terrible when it's you and your dad with a rod and bait. But we have the technology to create ships that dredge the ocean and exterminate all life. The scale is the problem.
To borrow a phrase, quantity has a quality all its own.
'write their own article' is using existing stuff and adding your own spin and flavor to it, thus creating something new. An LLM summary is lifefless summary and the moment we remove new human articles for LLM to summarize whats left is LLM summarizing other LLMs and then?
If the AI summary was being posted as an article that sat and competed side-by-side with the content you wrote that might be one thing. What Google are doing is more like putting their article at the top of every search and yours and everybody else’s on the second page out of sight.
I agree whole heartedly. It seems clear to me that art and knowledge will transition to more private and/or undocumented experiences in the coming years in order to preserve their value.
I mean, there's always been a grey area even when it came to tiny snippets in the results, though those actually encouraged you to click through when you found the right result.
The beginning of the end was including Wikipedia entries directly in the search results, although arguably even some of the image results are high quality enough to warrant skipping visiting the actual website (if you were lucky enough to get the image at the target site in the first place) So maybe it goes back sooner than that.
It does speak to one of the core problems with AI is the one time productivity boost from using all historical data created by humans is no longer going to be as useful going forward since individual contributors will no longer build and provide that information unless the incentive models change.
Most of your monthly active users don't want to read your articles. They want to get their questions answered with as little effort as possible. This is what Google's Overview is doing: it's transforming your articles into a form-factor that the users want. This is what you could be doing as well: rather than creating food for AI, create a mini-AI yourself that answers user questions. It doesn't have to fabricate answers, rather it can quote your memos in a format tailored to users, while your memos will remain private. This will also stonewall Google's AI, for now it would have to interrogate your mini-AI.
Unfortunately for you this kind of content does seem to be going the way of Blockbuster. But the writing was on the wall for years now with how much Google Search became useless due to over-SEOification of every website, LLMs were just the dagger
The pattern repeats itself. Come, use our services, it's free, it will be good for you. Users elevate the service to a monopoly. And then the behemoth thinks that the users - who gave their blood so the behemoth could grow - are now more like a nuisance and kills those that are the most vulnerable.
Every year they put the threshold higher and it results in more and more people getting burned. Of course the big, established brands are protected.
So they don't want the average joe's opinion. And they don't want to funnel money to you, now that you have fulfilled your purpose.
What you describe is more like the traditional VC structure for most businesses. Provide low cost services while they need to grow user base -- as user base is established the model now needs to extract value from the users - quality drops and the costs increases.
It happens for all VC based products since the drive on returns of invested capital is so high.
Put another way -- early stage products that every uses and love (in most not all cases) should not be assumed to be the end product.
Novel content will continue to require human creators. So, if you are at the frontier of some idea space, whether that’s using Homebrew or baking brownies, your input will be rewarded to some extent. But, we won’t need 1000 different Medium blogs about installing Rails or 1000 baking websites pitching the same recipe but with a different family story at the top.
Yes, maybe a small amount of people ultimately contributing but if their input is truly novel and “true” then what’s the downside?
It will just be different. No profit train lasts forever. Google is about to be made utterly irrelevant after 20+ years or so as a company. And they were the best.
If you still have a connection to your readers (e.g. email) you can still reach them. If they've formed a community, even better. If not, its a good time to work on that.
Google doesn't really have that. I have zero sense of community with Google. And that's why they'll die if something doesn't change.
> and more recently a website that's good for queries like "uninstall Homebrew" or "xcode command line tools" (sponsored by a carefully chosen advertiser). With both a (small) financial incentive and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work that people appreciate, I know I've helped a LOT of people over four decades.
Simple content that can be conveyed in a few succinct lines of text (like how to uninstall Homebrew) is actually one of the great use cases for AI summaries.
I’m sorry that it’s losing you revenue, but I’d much rather get a quick answer from AI than have to roll the dice on an ad-supported search result where I have to parse the layout, dodge the ads, and extract the relevant info from the filler content and verbiage
I mean, then what happens when there isn't enough money in producing answers but technology continues to move forward? There isn't any more content for the AI to summarize to answer with...
Just a question how content is produced & ingested.
Utopian fantasy: interact with the ai - novel findings are registered as such and "saved" and made available to others.
Creative ideas are registered as such, if possible, theyre tested in "side quests" ie the ai asks - do you have 5min to try this? You unblock yourself if it works & see in the future how many others profited as well (3k people read this finding).
A lot of the comments here are along the lines of "websites are often hostile, and AI summaries are a better user experience" which I agree with for most cases. I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.
If I create content like recipes, journalism etc, previously I had exclusive rights to my created content and could monetise it however I wanted. This has mostly led to what we have today, some high quality content, lots of low quality content, mostly monetised through user hostile ads.
Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules. I still can't do that, but Google can if it's done through the mechanism of AI summaries.
I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators. The best one is that we find some alternative, third way, for creators to monotise content while maintaining discoverability.
I'm not sure what will happen, and I'm not denying the usefulness of AI summaries, but it feels easy to miss that, at their core, they're a fundamental reworking of the current economics of the internet.
> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.
This would be lovely.
> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators.
More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!
>More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads.
Why would you do that if you thought it was going to be hoovered up by some giant corporation and spat out again for $20 a month with no attribution.
I understand that, I’m in the middle of a project right now that has no commercial value to me. What I’m not going to do is offer it up to Google et al so they can profit from it.
Why publish? If people aren't going to click into it anyway and read it, why not just do it and write it up for yourself? I've been doing this for years (in a way, haven't quite worked writing it up into that) but I explore on my own constantly and try things just with me and my fiance. I still hope to share it someday but this person is right. You don't _have_ to do anything with it once you've done it. You can just work on a project and enjoy the process and then do nothing.
In that instance, google loses value over time because less and less valuable content is published because there's no point because people may read it as an AI summary but probably aren't going to share their own findings or discuss with you anyway.
And Google would still use AI to get money by using that content without having to access your website. Besides that, creating content IS work for a lot of people. Ads and affiliated links are part of the monetization model that works the best, sadly. What you are saying is "people should just code for fun and curiosity, their income should come from elsewhere" while Google is making money with Gemini. It's not necessarily wrong, but it sounds dismissive.
I agree the current model sucks, but I think it being replaced is only good if it's replaced with something better.
> More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter
I'd love the idea of people doing things because they're passionate, but I feel a little unsure about people doing things because they're passionate, generating money from those things, but all that money going to AI summariser companies. I think there's some pretty serious limits too, journalists risk their safety a lot of the time, and I can't see a world where that happens purely out of "passion" without any renumeration. Aside from anything else, some acts of journalism like overseas reporting etc, isn't compatible with working a seperate "for-pay" job.
It's not going to happen this way, because these days for you to get somewhere near the top of Google results requires you to be an established content publisher, basically anyone with enough followers.
Someone who publishes content because they love the subject matter would only reach enough of an audience to have an impact if they work on it, a lot, and most people wouldn't do that without some expectation of return on investment, so they'd follow the influencer / commercial publication playbook and end up in the same place as the established players in the space are already.
If you're satisfied of being on the 50th page on the Google results, then that's fine. Nobody will find you though.
Being passionate about hats is one thing, but being passionate about sharing something you care about with others is the real driver for publishing. As LLMs degrade web discoverability through search (summaries+slop results), there's no incentive for the latter people to continue publishing on the open web or even the bot-infested closed gardens.
The web is on a trajectory where a local dyi zine will reach as many readers as an open website. It might even be cheaper than paying for a domain+hosting once that industry contracts and hosting plans aren't robust enough to keep up with requests from vibe-coded scrapers.
> More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!
I disagree with that. There are still people out there doing that out of passion, that hasn't changed (it's just harder to find). Bad actors who are only out there for the money will continue trying to get the money. Blogs might not be relevant anymore, but social media influencing is still going to be a thing. SEO will continue to exist, but now it's targeted to influence AIs instead of the position in Google search results. AIs will need to become (more) profitable, which means they will include advertising at some point. Instead of companies paying Google to place their products in the search or influencers through affiliate links, they will just pay AI companies to place their products in AI results or influencers to create fake reviews trying to influence the AI bots. A SEO slop article is at least easy to detect, recommendations from AIs are much harder to verify.
Also it's going to hit journalism. Not everyone can just blog because they are passionate about something. Any content produced by professionals is either going to be paywalled even more or they need to find different sources of income threatening journalistic integrity. And that gives even more ways to bad actors with money to publish news in their interest for free and gaining more influence on the public debate.
It's crazy how few people see it that way. Big tech is capturing all the value created by content creators, and it's slowly strangling the independent web it feeds on. It's a parasitic relationship. Once the parasite has killed its host, it will feed on its users.
>If I create content like recipes ... previously I had exclusive rights to my created content
Recipes are not protected by copyright law. That's _why_ recipe bloggers have resorted to editorialising recipes, because the editorial content is copyrightable.
Haha, you've exposed that I know absolutely nothing about copyright law! That's a great point, but I think my original point still stands if you swap out my full-of-holes example for a type of content that is copyrightable.
> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether
Quite clearly heading in that direction, but with a twist: the only people left will be advertising or propaganda, if there's no money in authenticity or correctness.
There was little to no money in authenticity or correctness in the heyday of home pages and personal blogs. People published because they were excited about sharing information and opinions. That was arguably the internet at its best.
> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.
And this is the reason why Google took its sweet time to counter OpenAI's GPT3. They _had_ to come up with this, which admittedly disrupts the publishers business model but at least if Google is successful they will keep their moat as the first step in any sales funnel.
> Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules
This is not true, you absolutely could have republished a recipe with your own wording and user experience.
At some stage Google will need to be accountable for answers they are hosting on their own site. The argument of "we're only indexing info on other sites" changes when you are building a tool to generate content and hosting that content on your own domain.
I'm guilty of not clicking when I'm satisfied with the AI answer. I know it can be wrong. I've seen it be wrong multiple times. But it's right at the top and tells me what I suspected when I did the search. The way they position the AI overview is right in your face.
I would prefer the "AI overview" to be replaced with something that helps me better search rather than giving me the answer directly.
>But it's right at the top and tells me what I suspected when I did the search. The way they position the AI overview is right in your face.
Which also introduces the insidious possibility that AI summaries will be designed to confirm biases. People already use AI chat logs to prove stuff, which is insane, but it works on some folks.
> The argument of "we're only indexing info on other sites" changes when you are building a tool to generate content and hosting that content on your own domain.
And yet, "the algorithm" has always been their first defense whenever they got a complaint or lawsuit about search results; I suspect that when (not if) they get sued over this, they will do the same. Treating their algorithms and systems as a mysterious, somewhat magic black box.
You can opt-in to get an LLM response by phrasing your queries as a question.
Searching for “who is Roger rabbit” gives me Wikipedia, IMDb and film site as results.
Searching for “who is Roger rabbit?” gives me a “quick answer” LLM-generated response: “Roger Rabbit is a fictional animated anthropomorphic rabbit who first appeared in Gary K. Wolf's 1981 novel…” followed by a different set of results. It seems the results are influenced by the sources/references the LLM generated.
Your answer is helpful, but "phrasing your queries as a question" might reasonably be interpreted as implying a full natural language question is required to trigger the LLM response -- especially since your example is a full sentence.
I'm trying to expand on your point by clarifying that "roger rabbit?" will also trigger the LLM response.
What I say is that the search results part of the page, with or without the summary should be the same in theory.
So if the other person saw a difference in the result returned it might be only because of the impact of the question mark character itself on the search index
I'm more interested now than ever. A lot of my time spent searching is for obscure or hard-to-find stuff, and in the past smaller search engines were useless for this. But most of my searches are quick and the primary thing slowing me down are Google product managers. So maybe Kagi is worth a try?
However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.
Thanks for the suggestion. I try nonstandard search engines now and then and maybe this one will stick. Google certainly is trying their best to encourage me.
After about a year on Kagi my work browser randomly reverted to Google. I didn’t notice the page title, as my eyes go right to the results. I recoiled. 0 organic results without scrolling, just ads and sponsored links everywhere. It seems like Google boiled the frog one degree at a time. Everyone is in hell and just doesn’t know it, because it happened so gradually.
I’ve also tried various engines over the years. Kagi was the first one that didn’t have me needing to go back to Google. I regularly find things that people using Google seem to not find. The Assistant has solved enough of my AI needs that I don’t bother subscribing to any dedicated AI company. I don’t miss Google search at all.
I do still using Google Maps, as its business data still seems like the best out there, and second place isn’t even close. Kagi is working on their own maps, but that will be long road. I’m still waiting for Apple to really go all-in, instead of leaning on Yelp.
Apple really needs to update Safari to let people choose their search engine, instead of just having the list of blessed search engines to choose from.
This is what I used, but it’s a bit of a hack. It has to hijack one of the other search engine, which then becomes unusable. It also doesn’t show the search term in the address bar, like the person was asking for.
Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes
6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers and usually all in F not C ... despite Google knowing location ... I used it as an example at the time of 'how hard can this be?'
First sentance of Google AI response right now: "Pork is safe to eat when cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F (63°C)"
Dear lord please don’t use an AI overview answer for food safety.
If you made a bet with your friend and are using the AI overview to settle it, fine. But please please click on an actual result from a trusted source if you’re deciding what temperature to cook meat to
The problem is that SEO has made it hard to find trustworthy sites in the first place. The places I trust the most now for getting random information is Reddit and Wikipedia, which is absolutely ridiculous as they are terrible options.
But SEO slop machines have made it so hard to find the good websites without putting in more legwork than makes sense a lot of the time. Funnily enough, this makes AI look like a good option to cut through all the noise despite its hallucinations. That's obviously not acceptable when it comes to food safety concerns though.
If I do that search on Google right now, the top result is the National Pork Board (pork.org): ad-free, pop-up free, waffle-free and with the correct answer in large font at the top of the page. It's in F, but I always stick " C" at the end of temperature queries. In this case that makes the top result foodsafety.gov which is equally if not more authoritative, also ad-, waffle-, and popup- free and with with the answer immediately visible.
Meanwhile the AI overview routinely gives me completely wrong information. There's zero chance I'm going to trust it when a wrong answer can mean I give my family food poisoning.
I agree that there is a gigaton of crap out there, but the quality information sources are still there too. Google's job is to list those at the top and it actually has done so this time, although I'll acknowledge it doesn't always and I've taken to using Kagi in preference for this reason. A crappy AI preview that can't be relied on for anything isn't an acceptable substitute.
Kagi search gives the pork board first as well. But note that site fails mtkd's requirements giving temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and not Celsius. The second hit does give a correct temperature but has a cookie banner (which at least can be rejected with one click)
The optional Kagi assistant quotes the pork board, usda which also is only in Fahrenheit, and third a blog on site for a thermometer that quoted the UK Food Standard Authority and gives its temperature
However there is a problem the UK FSA does not agree with USDA on the temperature it puts it higher at 70 degrees C rather than 63
So if you get the USDA figure you are taking a risk.
The Kagi Assistant gives both temperatures but it is not clear which one is correct although both figures are correctly linked to the actual sites.
I don't really see the problem with F and C. As I mentioned, I always stick " C" on the end of temperature queries. It's 2 characters and the results always have the centigrade temps, on both Kagi and Google.
Of course. What else would I think they were complaining about? I also live in a country that uses C. That's why I always stick " C" on the end of temperature queries.
It would be nice if they automatically prioritised those results, but that's a search engine improvement and nobody's working on those any more [1]. A half-arsed AI summary that can't be trusted to get the actual temperature right certainly doesn't solve it.
[1] Except Kagi, and even they're distracted by the AI squirrel.
As I said, it routinely gives incorrect data so it can't be relied on for something that matters, like a safe cooking temperature.
Note that we're talking about the Google AI Summary here, not AI in general. Whatever magical capabilities you think your favoured model has or will soon have, the Google AI Summary is currently utter garbage and routinely spouts nonsense. (Don't try and persuade me otherwise. I have to use Google at work so I see its lies first hand every day.)
It's a bit like the Easter Islanders cutting down all of their trees for wood. Where does Google management think they'll get search results if they kill the entire internet? Has anyone at Google thought that far ahead?
The internet they dream of is like a large mall. It consists of service providers selling you something, and Google directing you to them in exchange for some of the profit. The role of users in this model is that of a Piñata that everyone hits on to drop some money.
DDG is just serving you remixed bing and yandex results. There’s basically no alternative to GBY that do their own crawling and maintain their own index.
I've been using noai.duckduckgo.com for a few weeks now and it's pretty reliable. Still yandex etc. but at least no longer AI overview. (Yes, I know about settings, but they get deleted every restart).
Well, they decided which sites were OK, and then people SEO'd a bunch of crap into Google's idea of a good website.
I'm no fan of Google but it's not so simple to figure out what's relevant, good content on the scale of the internet, while confronted by an army of adversarial actors who can make money by working out what you value in a site.
AI is being influenced by all that noise. It isn’t necessarily going to an authoritative source, it’s looking at Reddit and some SEO slop and using that to come up with the answer.
We need AI that’s trained exclusively on verified data and not random websites and internet comments.
I asked Gemini about some Ikea furniture dimensions and it gave seemingly correct answers, until it suddenly didn't make sense.
Turns out all the information it gave me came from old Reddit posts and lots of it was factually wrong. Gemini however still linked some official Ikea pages as the "sources".
It'll straight up lie to you and then hide where it actually got it's info from. Usually Reddit.
Creating better datasets would also help to improve the performance of the models, I would assume. Unfortunately, the costs to produce high-quality datasets of a sufficient size seem prohibitive today.
I'm hopeful this will be possible in the future though, maybe using a mix of 1) using existing LLMs to help humans filter the existing internet-scale datasets, and/or 2) finding some new breakthroughs to make model training more data efficient.
Please find a trusted source of information for food safety information.
It's genuinely harder than it's ever been to find good information on the internet, but when you're dealing with food safety information, it's really worth taking the extra minute to find a definitive source.
The site you linked to is published by the American government who are actively anti-science, removing access to research and cutting funding for ideological reasons, denying widely accepted climate and medical facts etc. I wouldn't trust that source at all.
I mean, I'm absolutely not going to take the current FDA's guidance on drinking raw milk. You need to evaluate what you're willing to trust for yourself. I printed out the pre-January 2025 FDA vaccine schedule, so I could compare it against any updated recommendations.
All that said, the cooking temperatures aren't something that they've changed, and I would still rely on the US government published number over a AI generated value
Mmm, I see this cutting both ways -- generally, I'd agree; safety critical things should not be left to an AI. However, cooking temperatures are information that has a factual ground truth (or at least one that has been decided on), has VERY broad distribution on the internet, and generally is a single, short "kernel" of information that has become subject to slop-ifying and "here's an article when you're looking for about 30 characters of information or less" that is prolific on the web.
So, I'd agree -- safety info from an LLM is bad. But generally, the /flavor/ (heh) of information that such data comprises is REALLY good to get from LLMs (as opposed to nuanced opinions or subjective feedback).
I don’t know. I searched for how many chapters a popular manga has on Google and it gave me the wrong answer (by an order of magnitude). I only found out later and it did really piss me off because I made a trek to buy something that never existed. I should’ve known better.
I don’t think this is substantively different from cooking temperature, so I’m not trusting that either.
Eh I think it is. Arcane things -- sure, that might be a bit of a stretch. My general rule of thumb is that if I would expect ~10% of people to know the information factually, I can likely trust what an LLM tells me.
Idk. Maybe that's true today (though even today I'm not sure) but how long before AI becomes better than just finding random text on a website?
After all, AI can theoretically ask follow-up questions that are relevant, can explain subtleties peculiar to a specific situation or request, can rephrase things in ways that are clearer for the end user.
Btw, "What temperature should a food be cooked to" is a classic example of something where lots of people and lots of sources repeat incorrect information, which is often ignored by people who actually cook. Famously, the temp that is often "recommended" is only the temp at which bacteria/whatever is killed instantly - but is often too hot to make the food taste good. What is normally recommended is to cook to a lower temperature but keep the food at that temperature for a bit longer, which has the same effect safety-wise but is much better.
> Btw, "What temperature should a food be cooked to" is a classic example of something where lots of people and lots of sources repeat incorrect information, which is often ignored by people who actually cook. Famously, the temp that is often "recommended" is only the temp at which bacteria/whatever is killed instantly
I love this reply because you support your own point by repeating information that is technically incorrect.
To qualify myself, I have a background in food service. I've taken my "Food Safe" course in Ontario which is not legally mandated to work in food service, but offered by our government-run health units and many restaurants require a certificate to be employed in any food handling capacity (wait staff or food prep).
There is no such thing as "killed instantly." The temperature recommendations here in Canada, for example, typically require that the food be held at that temperature for a minimum of 15 seconds.
There is some truth in what you say. Using temperature to neutralize biological contaminants is a function of time and you can certainly accomplish the same result by holding food at lower temperature for a longer period of time. Whether this makes the food "taste better" or not depends on the food and what you're doing.
Sous Vide cooking is the most widely understood method of preparation where we hold foods at temperatures that are FAR lower than what is typically recommended, but held for much longer. I have cooked our family Thanksgiving Turkey breast at 60C sous vide, and while I personally like it... others don't like the texture. So your mileage may vary.
My point is that you're making a bunch of claims that have grains of truth to them, but aren't strictly true. I think your comment is an application of the dunning kruger effect. You know a little bit and because of that you think you know way more than you actually do. And I had to comment because it is beautifully ironic. Almost as if that paragraph in your comment is, itself, AI slop lol
> And I had to comment because it is beautifully ironic. Almost as if that paragraph in your comment is, itself, AI slop lol
Glad to be of service :) I think that's the first time a comment of mine has been accused of being AI slop. Sorry to say, every word - correct or incorrect - is mine.
> To qualify myself, I have a background in food service.
I'm just a person who watches cooking YouTube a bit, so right off the bat - I'll defer to your expertise on this.
I'm not sure we really disagree much though. My rough memory is that the guidelines specify temperature at which things are killed, I don't know if "instantly" or "15 seconds" really makes a difference in practice.
> Sous Vide cooking is the most widely understood method of preparation where we hold foods at temperatures that are FAR lower than what is typically recommended, but held for much longer.
Sous Vide is where I was first exposed to this concept, but I was more referring to things like chicken breasts, etc, which often aren't great at the minimal internal temperature, but I've seen YouTube "chefs" recommend cooking them to a slightly lower temperature, banking on the idea that they will effectively be at a slightly lower temperature, but long enough to still effectively kill bacteria. I've even seen criticism of the FDA charts for exactly this reason.
But to clarify, this is far outside any expertise I actually have.
> I think your comment is an application of the dunning kruger effect. You know a little bit and because of that you think you know way more than you actually do.
> , but I was more referring to things like chicken breasts, etc, which often aren't great at the minimal internal temperature, but I've seen YouTube "chefs" recommend cooking them to a slightly lower temperature, banking on the idea that they will effectively be at a slightly lower temperature, but long enough to still effectively kill bacteria.
Something that is very common is removing food from the heat source before the internal temperature hits your target because heat transfer itself takes time and so the food will continue to cook inside for a short period of time after being removed. This is because the outside, which you are blasting with heat that is far higher than your internal target, will partly transfer to the inside (the rest will dissipate into the air). So if you remove it from the heat exactly when you hit the internal temp, you can exceed the target temperature and your food will be "over cooked."
The problem with a tv chef recommending using a traditional cooking method, such as baking or frying, to TARGET a lower temperature, is that is very hard with those mediums to control for time. What you are doing with those mediums is you are blasting the outside of your food with a temperature that is far hotter than your internal target.
And so say, for example, you have your oven set to 180C and you are cooking chicken and your internal temperature target is, let's say 4 degrees cooler than the official recommendation. So the official recommendation is 74C held for a minimum of 15 seconds (that's Canada) and you are targeting 70C. With traditional cooking methods, you are playing a guessing game where you're blasting the outside of the food with very hot temperatures in order to bring the inside of the food up to some target.
I don't know off hand how much longer you would have to hold at 70C to get the same effect as 15 seconds at 74C ... but while you're waiting, your food is likely to exceed 74C anyway because of the high temperatures you're working with.
So that's why I talked about sous vide... becuase it's kind of the only way you can control for those variables. No oven can hold steady at temps as low as 70C (even at higher temps they fluctuate quite a bit. Anywhere from 5C - 20C depending on the oven).
And yeah - we definitely agree on most things. The minimum recommended temperatures are "play it safe" rather than "make food delicious." I do recognize that that was ultimately your point :)
It wasn't really my point to pick on you or argue with you, but to show that certain things you said are "partly true", which is a common complaint of AI (that and hallucinations). When we're dealing with things like food safety and the general public, it is usually better to offer general advise that is play it safe.
And with certain foods this matters more than others. Chickens get infected with salmonella while they are alive, for example, and so the bacteria can live throughout the meat. Whereas if you're cooking beef, you really only need to worry about surface contamination and so you can sear a steak for a few seconds and have it still be very "blue" in the middle and you're good.
When I searched for the safe temperature for pork (in German), I found this as the first link (Kagi search engine)
> Ideally, pork should taste pink, with a core temperature between 58 and 59 degrees Celsius. You can determine the exact temperature using a meat thermometer.
Is that not a health concern?
Not anymore, as nutrition expert Dagmar von Cramm confirms:
> “Trichinae inspection in Germany is so strict — even for wild boars — that there is no longer any danger.”
I was just thinking that EU sources might be a good place to look for this sort of thing, given that we never really know what basic public health facts will be deemed political in the US on any given day. But, this reveals a bit of a problem—of course, you guys have food safety standards, so advice they is safe over there might not be applicable in the US.
Doesn't even have to be "better", just "different". The classic one is whether you should refrigerate eggs, which has diametrically opposite answers.
But anything that actually matters could be politicized at any time. I remember the John Gummer Burger Incident: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm , in the controversy over whether prion diseases in beef (BSE) were a problem.
Funny story, I used that to know the cooked temperature of burgers, it said medium-rare was 130. I proceeded to eating it and all, but then like half way through, I noticed the middle of this burger is really red looking, doesn't seem normal, and suddenly I remembered, wait, ground beef is always supposed to be 160, 130 medium-rare is for steak.
I then chatted that back to it, and it was like, oh ya, I made a mistake, you're right, sorry.
Anyways, luckily I did not get sick.
Moral of the story, don't get mentally lazy and use AI to save you the brain it takes for simple answers.
Do you actually put a thermometer in your burgers/steaks/meat when you’re cooking? That seems really weird.
Why are people downvoting this? I’ve literally never seen anyone use a thermometer to cook a burger or steak or pork chop. A whole roasted turkey, sure.
You're getting lots of thermometer answers, so I'm going to give the opposite: I'm also on team "looks good to me" + "cooking time on packet" + "just cut it and look"
Many people wing dishes that they've prepared 100s of times. Others rarely make the same recipe twice. Neither are correct or incorrect, but the latter is very much going to measure everything they're doing carefully (or fail often).
For whole meats, it's usually safe to be rare and you can tell that by feel, though a thermometer is still useful if you aren't a skilled cook or you are cooking to a doneness you aren't familiar with.
I think your reference pool is just small. I absolutely use it for meat and especially for ground meat, which has a much higher chance of contamination.
Perhaps this varies by region? I don't know anyone that buys burgers in a packet. They buy ground beef and either make patties or balls (for smash burgers).
I don't do much of the shopping, but we get costco frozen burger patties for most of our home burgers. I don't think it costs more than the same weight of 'whole' ground beef, and it's convenient.
Those are thin enough I wouldn't think to stick a thermometer in them... it would be too hard to get it in the center and not out the other side, and it's pretty easy to get a sense of doneness from the outside (or cut into one and see). Steaks, depending on who's eating and doneness preferences, thermometer is nice. Roasts, almost certainly.
Why would you purchase meat that you suspect is diseased? Even if you cook it well-done, all the (now dead) bacteria and their byproducts are still inside. I don't understand why people do this to themselves? If I have any suspicion about some meat, I'll throw it away. I'm not going to cook it.
Most of the time if there isn't a straightforward primary source in the top results, Google's AI overview won't get it right either.
Given the enormous scale and latency constraints they're dealing with, they're not using SOTA models, and they're probably not feeding the model 5000 words worth of context from every result on the page.
Not only that, it includes a link to the USDA reference so you can verify it yourself. I have switched back to google because of how useful I find the RAG overviews.
The link is the only useful part, since you can’t trust the summary.
Maybe they could just show the links that match your query and skip the overview. Sounds like a billion-dollar startup idea, wonder why nobody’s done it.
It’s a pretty good billion dollar idea, I think you’ll do well. In fact I bet you’ll make money hand over fist, for years. You could hire all the best engineers and crush the competition. At that point you control the algorithm that everyone bases their websites on, so if you were to accidentally deploy a series of changes that incentivized low quality contentless websites… it wouldn’t matter at all; not your problem. Now that the quality of results is poor, but people still need their queries answered, why don’t you provide them the answers yourself? You could keep all the precious ad revenue that you previously lost when people clicked on those pesky search results.
As of a couple weeks ago it had a variety of unsafe food recommendations regarding sous vide, e.g. suggesting 129F for 4+ hours for venison backstrap. That works great some of the time but has a very real risk of bacterial infiltration (133F being similar in texture and much safer, or 2hr being a safer cook time if you want to stick to 129F).
The problem is that 129F is a borderline safe temperature at any length of time. 3-4hrs is closer to what you want to kill _all_ the salmonella and e coli, but 2hrs kills enough that it's very likely to be safe, and 129F isn't a sufficient temperature for any length of time to kill clostridium perfringens and other similar bacteria, resulting in spoilage occasionally with a greatly increased likelihood the longer you cook it.
Separately, yes, you do normally sear it afterwards. It's for flavor/appearence/texture reasons though, and a number of people recommend mildly chilling it (say, for 15min or so) first so that you don't overcook any of the interior from the sear. The pan should be much hotter than a lot of people expect.
The only advantage is the automatic unit conversion, and that introduces a second point where the summary can get it wrong. If the source gives an incorrect answer then the AI summary is just going to repeat it, if you’re lucky.
No it wasn't, most of the first page results have the temperature right there in the summary, many of them with both F and C, and unlike the AI response, there is much lower chance of hallucinated results.
So you've gained nothing
PS
Trying the same search with -ai gets you the full table with temperatures, unlike with the AI summary where you have to click to get more details, so the new AI summary is strictly worse
Honestly the SEO talk sounds like reflexive coping in this discourse. I get that WWW has cheapened quality, but we now have the tech that could defeat most of the SEO and other trash tactics on the search engine side. Text analysis as a task is cracked open. Google and such could detect dark patterns with LLMs, or even just deep learning. This would probably be more reliable than answering factual queries.
The problem is there is no money and fame in using it that way, or at least so people think in the current moment. But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30.
Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.
> But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30.
We could.
But it will absolutely not happen unless and until it can be more profitable than Google's current model.
What's your plan?
> Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.
Well, yes. That's the problem. Why rely on the same random liars as taste-makers?
Why do you think that answer is correct? I mean maybe it is, or maybe it’s by the same user who recommended eating rocks (which ‘AI’ also recommended).
It doesn't take long to find SEO slop trying to sell you something:
When our grandmothers and grandfathers were growing up, there was a real threat to their health that we don’t face anymore. No, I’m not talking about the lack of antibiotics, nor the scarcity of nutritious food. It was trichinosis, a parasitic disease that used to be caught from undercooked pork.
The legitimate worry of trichinosis led their mothers to cook their pork until it was very well done. They learned to cook it that way and passed that cooking knowledge down to their offspring, and so on down to us. The result? We’ve all eaten a lot of too-dry, overcooked pork.
But hark! The danger is, for the most part, past, and we can all enjoy our pork as the succulent meat it was always intended to be. With proper temperature control, we can have better pork than our ancestors ever dreamed of. Here, we’ll look at a more nuanced way of thinking about pork temperatures than you’ve likely encountered before."
Sorry, what temperature was it again?
Luckily there's the National Pork Board which has bought its way to the top, just below the AI overview. So this time around I won't die from undercooked pork at least.
The link quoted does not have that text so what are you on about?
However that site gives the temperature for Pork as 71C which is not what USDA says but is correct. So using the USDA recommendation does have a risk according to at least Canada and UK
That's the thing, though — there isn't an objective standard here; it's mediated both by the local context (how good are the local trich inspections, etc.) and risk tolerance vs. cultural expectations for how the meat should taste. The Canadian and US governments currently disagree; so it goes.
Everything "has a risk". Taste and smell are not reliable indicators of bacterial contamination, and properly cooking meat won't eliminate dangerous toxins left behind by prior contamination if the meat was improperly stored before cooking.
Incredible, you are the problem. Didn't think I'd see such an idiotic answer on HN, please for the love of god do not use AI to know what is safe to eat.
id consider that google thinks its good enough for people to base their food safety off of it, and they deserve to get sued for whatever theyre worth for providing said recommendations when somebody trusts them and gets sick
Why is this being framed as a problem? People are obviously happier with the new feature, duh
Of course they need to make the AI overviews suck less, but saying it’s unfair to sites is crazy talk because your site now just generates less value than an AI response if that’s what stopped you from going
If you have content better than Gemini I will still go to your site
Where do you suppose AI overviews get their source from? The problem here is Google is now inserting itself between a business' user and the business' content. I'm not saying that was a good or invulnerable business to begin with but that's what's happened. If you kill the business of making reliable content, what are they left to serve?
For the past ten years I've run a side project that estimates the word count of books and how long it takes to read them. Maintaining and improving this requires tens of hours a month, and a few hundred dollars in RDS, ECS, etc. costs. Two years ago I was at least breaking even on affiliate income, so the cost put into it was purely my own time and effort which I enjoy. These days my total traffic numbers are about 10x, but human traffic is down 50-70%.
I'm basically paying to host content for AI crawlers to scrape and I don't know how much longer I can do this. I'm adding Goodreads-esque features currently, but if it doesn't get the sign ups I'll be forced to archive the code and take the site down.
Because some companies are going bankrupt because of the data google is taking. Google always had a weird relationship with sites, they sort of needed each other but google always had the upper hand, now it’s even worse
They don't have the upper hand anymore. They are desperately trying to stay relevant, so that users don't just skip Google altogether and use ChatGPT or other AI directly.
A lot of companies seem to have based their business model on the assumption that Google and Microsoft would continue to send them traffic for free indefinitely.
So now they're having to scramble to rethink their approach, and obviously aren't happy about that.
That does not imply that future progress is a good thing, nor does it imply that future progress will even be useful to the majority. It boggles my mind how some people make the logical inference that "all progress is good" based on "some past progress was useful".
It is useful, but it assumes the information is trustworthy. At least with websites you could discern some credibility based on the organization publishing the information. With AI summaries, it's just "Google's latest model seems to think this is the answer, good luck!"
I think it's too much information to handle, and that information can interfere with the enjoymnet of what we already have. It might be useful in an economic sense, but its usefulness to life is questionable.
Personally, I think it's not such a good thing after all.
This is because they have entrenched themselves in a comfortable position that they don’t want to give up. Most won’t admit this to be the actual reason.
Think about it: you are a normal hands on self thought software developer. You grew up tinkering with Linux and a bit of hardware. You realise there’s good money to be made in a software career. You do it for 20-30 years; mostly the same stuff over and over again. Some Linux, c#, networking. Your life and hobby revolves around these technologies. And most importantly you have a comfortable and stable income that entrenches your class and status. Anything that can disrupt this state is obviously not desireable. Never mind that disrupting others careers is why you have a career in the first place.
It's relatively straightforward to create a firefox alternate search engine which defaults to the "web" tab of Google search results which is mostly free of Google-originated LLM swill.
Google was kind enough to give the AI overview a stable CSS class name (to date), so this userscript has been effective at hiding it for me:
window.addEventListener('load', function() {
var things = this.document.getElementsByClassName('M8OgIe');
for (var thing of things) {
thing.style.display = 'none';
}
}, false);
Those four characters are enough friction to slowly grind down the number of today's outraged people into a population small enough that, when Google stop supporting '-ai', people will think it's weird that you still care.
appending a -"fuck google #{insert slur of choice here}" to my search results has improved them. Then I wonder why I do this to myself and ponder going back to kagi.
I wish there was a good udm option for "what you used to show me before AI took over". For example, I like seeing flight updates when I punch in a flight number, which udm=14 does not show.
That said, udm=14 has still been a huge plus for me in terms of search engine usability, so it's my default now.
Ads inside LLMs (e.g. pay $ to boost your product in LLM recommendation) is going to be a big thing.
My guess is that Google/OpenAI are eyeing each other - whoever does this first.
Why would that work? It's a proven business model. Example: I use LLMs for product research (e.g. which washing machine to buy). Retailer pays if link to their website is included in the results. Don't want to pay? Then redirect the user to buy it on Walmart instead of Amazon.
I actually encountered this pretty early in one of these user tuned GPT's in OpenAI's GPT store. It was called Sommelier or something and it was specialized in conversations about wine. It was pretty useful at first, but after a few weeks it started lacing all its replies with tips for wines from the same online store. Needless to say, I dropped it immediately.
Forget links, agents are gonna just go upstream to the source and buy it for you. I think it will change the game because intent will be super high and conversion will go through the roof.
Look, the car shop might not bill you at all because their A.I agent will hallucinate the purchase, so I don't see why you're so pessimistic about agents.
No, a small group of highly tech-literate people are wary of this. Your personal bubble is wary of this. So is some of mine. "People" don't care and will use the packaged, corporate, convenient version with the well-known name.
People who are aware of that and care enough to change consumption habits are an inconsequential part of the market.
I don't know, a bunch of the older people from the town I grew up in avoided using LLMs until Grok came out because of what they saw going on with alignment in the other models (they certainly couldn't articulate this but listening to what said it's what they were thinking.) Obviously Grok has the same problems but I think it goes to show the general public is more aware of the issue than they get credit for.
You combine this with Apple pushing on device inference and making it easy and anything like ads probably will kill hosted LLMs for most consumers.
This is a new line of business that provides them with more ad space to sell.
If the overview becomes a trusted source of information, then all they need to do is inject ads in the overviews. They already sort of dye that. Imagine it as a sort of text based product placement.
> If the overview becomes a trusted source of information
It never will. By disincentivizing publishers they're stripping away most of the motivation for the legitimate source content to exist.
AI search results are a sort of self-cannibalism. Eventually AI search engines will only have what they cached before the web became walled gardens (old data), and public gardens that have been heavily vandalized with AI slop (bad data).
I’d guess that the searches where AI overviews are useful and the searches where companies are buying ads are probably fairly distinct. If you search for plumbers near you, they won’t show an AI overview, while if you search “Why are plants green?”, no one was buying ads on that.
Everyone is talking about it , and it is a big concern, but the last 2 years (ever since ChatGPT showed up) ad revenue keeps growing at the same 10%+ . It seems like the money queries (adidas shoes size 45) are still better served with links than overviews, and those are where most of the money comes from. Searching for "what cooking temperature is pork safe to eat" is not something you can easily monetize.
> The tricky thing for Google will be to do this and not kill their cash cow ad business
This is not for Google to decide.
The users have spoken clearly that (when given an option) they will not tolerate or succumb to the SPAM of shitty SEO-optimized content-farms which has been plaguing the internet for the last decade.
If Google don't provide meaningful results in their search page, people will use ChatGPT or something else to sidestep the SEO SPAM issue all together.
Related, but to whichever PM put the "AI Mode" on the far left side of the toolbar, thus breaking the muscle memory from clicking "All" to get back from "Images", I expect some thanks for unintentionally boosting your CTR metrics.
What I don't understand is how do you square that with google still reporting growth in ads revenues. Surely google's business should tank by that much (not even taking into account the additional cost of processing a seach with AI).
> What I don't understand is how do you square that with google still reporting growth in ads revenues.
Advertiser sees fewer hits from ad campaign, assumes it's their competitors, then raises their budget slightly to better compete in the ad auction.
Multiply that by about 300m businesses.
The signals that Google's customers (the advertisers) get is not "Your ad was ignored after we answer the user's query directly", it's "Your ad was ignored". The advertisers cannot tell why the ad was ignored.
The clicks in question: "Here's a thirty page story of how grandma discovered this recipe... BTW you need to subscribe/make an account/pay to view the rest of the article!"
If Google just copied and pasted the content from my blog and put it on their own website which had ads that paid them, preventing customers from going to my blog (and thus seeing my ads which I get paid for), that would be obviously wrong.
Liberating me from "search clicks" is not a bad thing at all. I suspect many of us though don't even go to <search engine> anyway but ask an LLM directly.
It's fundamentally self-destructive though. In time, the sites which rely on search clicks for revenue will essentially cease to be paid for their work, and in many cases will therefore stop publishing the high-quality material that you're looking for.
I assumed that, after having using LLMs myself increasingly, that LLM's killing search was inevitable anyway. Further I assume that Google recognizes it as well and would rather at least remain somewhat relevant?
Google search, as others have mentioned in this thread, increasingly fails to give me high-quality material anyway. Mostly it's just pages of SEO spam. I prefer that the LLM eat that instead of me (just spit back up the relevant stuff, thankyouverymuch).
Honestly though, increasingly the internet for me is 1) a distraction from doing real work 2) YouTube (see 1) and 3) a wonderful library called archive.org (which, if I could grab a local snapshot would make leaving the internet altogether much, much easier).
By high quality material do you mean the 15 ads per page, ultra SEO optimized, content length extended posts that will give you a mediocre carbonara recipe?
Ad web has never incentivized quality and never will.
Sites rely on ad impressions for revenue. I block ads anyway so either way they aren’t getting money from me.
And if ad supported content ceases to exist, nothing of value will have been lost. I’m not morally opposed to advertising, I find ad supported content not worth reading especially on mobile.
My sense is (call me naive if you like) but if the thing was of value, it would survive (or be reborn in another form) without ads. Donation supported sites (looking at you Wikipedia) or just passion projects would continue.
Before web advertising the entire web was a "free lunch" — if by free lunch you mean individuals putting their sites up; their only compensation being some degree of joy at spreading and sharing their passion.
The early web was eccentric and kind of … "shambly", but I would not be upset if we returned to that.
The “web” has been ad infested since shortly after Netscape was introduced. Are people forgetting about the X11 pop under ads and the “punch the monkey” banner ads.
No, I pay for Apple News, Slate, Stratechery, Downstream+ (podcast), Accidental Tech podcast, etc.
I donate to electoral-vote.com via Patreon. Most of my news comes from podcasts and those ads don’t bother me as much as web ads. I said I wasn’t morally opposed to them.
I don’t use any app that is ad supported without the option to pay for an ad free experience the same with streaming services.
Thanks to AI crawlers the traffic costs will rise and all the sites who were ad free either need additional income, most likely ads, or will shut down.
ChatGPT lists clickable sources in a lot of nontrivial queries. Those sites don’t even need to pay OpenAI for the traffic (yet). If you ask „what’s happening in the world today“, you might get 20 links. How is this worse, exactly?
So either even higher costs and hope that a bug problem of LLMs get solved somehow.
Given how much data they need that will be pretty expensive, I mean really really expensive.
How many people can write good training data and how much per day?
Most of the time when I find a good answer from search it's one of a few things:
- Hobbyist site
- Forum or UGC
- Academic/gov
- Quality news which is often paywalled
Most of that stuff doesn't depend on ad clicks. The things that do depend on ad clicks are usually infuriating slop. I refuse to scroll through three pages of BS to get to the information I want and I really don't care if the slop farmers die off.
Google searches also come up with a lot of false information (well, it's where LLMs get their learnin' from — the Internet).
I'm never asking LLMs anything super critical like, "Do my taxes for me." This morning (as an example) I asked: "Is there talk of banning DJI drones in the U.S.?"
Later: "Difference between the RSE20 and RSS20 models of Yamaha electric guitars?"
And "Is there an Eco-Tank ink-jet suitable for Dye-Sub inks that can print Tabloid?"
1) None of the above are "critical".
2) All would have been a slight pain using Google and generated a lot of ... noise. LLMs eat the noise, do a decent job of giving me the salient points that answer my question.
3) All are easily verifiable if, for example, I decided to make a purchase based on what the LLM told me.
Or put another way, my disappointment in LLMs pales in comparison to my disappointment in search.
Or maybe I am just sick of search engines and want to "stick it to them".
In my view it's a pretty straightforward calculation. Nothing is free, no knowledge is instant. Start off knowing your time investment to learn anything is greater than zero and go from there..
If you do a Google (or other engine) search, you have to invest time pawing through the utter pile of shit that Google ads created on the web. Info that's hidden under reams of unnecessary text, potentially out of date, potentially not true; you'll need to evaluate a list of links and, probably, open multiple of them.
If you do an AI "search", you ask one question and get one answer. But the answer might a hallucination or based on incorrect info.
However, a lot of the time, you might be searching for something you already have an idea of, whether it's how to structure a script or what temperature pork is safe at; you can use your existing knowledge to assess the AI's answer. In that case the AI search is fast.
The rest of the time, you can at least tell the AI to include links to its references, and check those. Or its answer may help you construct a better Google search.
Ultimately search is a trash heap of Google's making, and I have absolute confidence in them also turning AI into a trash heap, but for now it is indeed faster for many purposes.
My site never got much traffic from Google and I never wasted time on SEO. So I find it hard to care about losing clicks I didn't have.
But I do find it concerning that Google is effectively stealing the time I spend on research and not offering proper credit. I'm always careful to credit people and provide extensive links to the work of others on my site. But here Google and others are simply stealing that work, getting it wrong, and then claiming they did all the effort.
A lot of startups like Profound are going after the "AEO" (basically SEO but of AI engine) space and absolutely blowing up. Marketers are freaking out. It's crazy to see the search juggernaut finally getting threatened.
For some (unknown to me) reason the web pages that used to sustain themselves on very small, quiet ads that were shown on sides of the page, now require full page, annoying, shouting, focus stealing, one-minimal-x-closing-after-few-seconds ADS. Therefore AI summary is a panaceum for this sickness.
However I understand that pages that have articles written need money to pay for those articles. For some another (unknown to me) reason reading something by AI and summarizing it is not a copyright violation, but the work that has been done to prepare the valuable content (article) will not be rewarded, therefore extrapolating it to future I can see that the 'dead internet theory' is coming right up.
People will stop writing because they don't get rewarded, so AIs will start speaking and discussing with other AIs and the entropy might lower (as in the amount of information present in the internet) leaving us to AI generated content only.
It's a weird goal to me. Like, what's their end game here? Offer to manipulate the AI responses for ad money? Product placement in the summaries? I would hope those placements have to be disclosed as advertising, and it would immediately break trust in anything their AI outputs so surely that would only continue to harm them in the long run, no?
~57% of their revenue is from search advertising. How do they plan on replacing that?
Yea it is tricky for them -- the old model of "search, see google text / link ad, scroll, click website, scroll, see some ads on that page as well, done" will be replaced with "search, see google text / link ad, read AI result, 'and here are some relevant websites'" -- where all of the incentives there will be to "go into more depth" on the websites that are linked there.
So youd be surprised and scared - the Ad PMs I know are totally salivating at this. Their angle is "SEO is no more - it is GEO now". GenAI Engine Optimization. Welcome to the Futurama Internet Future!
Total behavioral control through the augmentation of senses, emotions and all other sensibilities. Such political power is significantly more valuable than mere revenue.
Okay I think the question is still how they plan to convert this into cash, because political power can't buy food or pay your employees or be stored and quantified simply, which is why we invented money. Assuming this dystopian scenario is correct.
In a sense this is similar to what Amazon has been doing in few countries. Find top selling products, get them cheaper from somewhere, rebrand them, rank them higher and sell them. They don't need to invest in market research like their competetors, they get all data from Amazon.com
At big tech scale, this is clearly anti-compete and piracy IMHO.
people forget why users search - to find what they are looking for. as the saying goes, “No one wants a drill, they want a quarter inch hole.”
the first time i realized Google had a problem was when i used ChatGPT to search for Youtube videos, and compared to Youtube’s search, it was an order of magnitude easier to find the exact videos i was looking for.
Hallucinations are not a problem in a query like this, because i have what i need to evaluate the results: did i find interesting Youtube videos to watch? did i find what i was looking for?
generally speaking, users seek to minimize the effort required to achieve their goals.
First, in the pre training stage humans curate and filter the data thats actually used for training.
Then in the fine tuning stage people write ideal examples to teach task performance
Then there is reinforcement learning from human feedback RLHF where people rank multiple variations of the answer an AI gives, and thats part of the reinforcement loop
So there is really quite a bit of human effort and direction that goes into preventing the garbage-in garbage-out type situation you're referring to
At least they're not thrown in my face and appearing as eighteen pop-ups, notification requests, account-walls, SEOslop, and a partridge in a pear tree.
There is (IMO) still a lot of value in having a searchable Internet index. If AI summaries were the only option it would be very difficult to know whether something is influencing the AI.
The problem is, of course, that we've already lost that battle with Google and other search providers. We know they're influencing the results. There is no open Internet anymore, but at least we can check the different search indices against each other. Checking different AI summaries against each other seems a pretty fruitless endeavor.
Google introduced its Google Knowledge Graph in 2012 and for sure it caused the drop in website clicks but I would say not that significant. People want quality content and they will always look for quality websites with or without AI overviews. My digital marketing professor once said that customers who look beyond first page results are the most valuable ones, because they are dedicated users and customers. People who read AI overviews won't be your first class users and customers.
Step 3 is "train on synthetic data generated by previous AI models" - creating an inevitable quality death spiral as each generation trains on increasingly derivative content.
Knowing that your content is unlikely to be seen by many humans, and is mainly just feeding an AI is pretty discouraging. AI is great at detecting patterns, if content creations is discouraged, and more AI content is generated, AI content is likely to become so homogeneous that the internet becomes more of an echo chamber (than it already is).
I have replaced SEO with Perplexity AI only.
It isn't a chatbot but it actually search for what you are looking for and most importantly, it shows all the sources it used.
Depending on the question I can get anywhere from 10 to 40 sources.
No other AI service provides that, they use the data from their training model only which in my experience, is full of errors, incomplete, cannot answer or altogether.
Google's AI overviews gives you sources. The sources don't always say what Google AI thinks it says. Or, Google will mix up two sources that are talking about totally different things, assume they're the same thing, and then show you nonsense generated from the mix.
I don't immediately assume that Perplexity will be any better off. Citing sources is great, but I'd rather just read the sources myself rather than assuming that the AI did anywhere a good job of actually summarizing them properly. At that point, what does the AI actually usefully bring to the table?
Almost all other AI do that as well. ChatGPT will show you like 10+ sources, it'll put it next to the part of the answer that the source was used for too.
I think it's a google problem. The AI summary is often times wrong so I don't bother. But the pages are garbage as well, so normal users won't click on that looking for information. Dark forest and all that. Pages started to optimize for Google and not humans. Humans don't visit anymore. Duh
Yep, I can't remember when was the last time I've visited a SEO optimized site but I still had the bitter taste that I felt when I last visited it:
- searches for "How to do XYZ" and click one of the site
- "what is xyz"
- "why xyz matters"
- "preparations before xyz"
- "what you might encounter when xyz"
Sounds reasonable and in theory should be useful, but the actual useful info are only stuffed in 1-2 lines of multi paragraphs on tons of sections that I don't care about.
What current incentive is left for people to publish on the internet?
Discovery mechanisms are less effective than before, people no longer visit your website, copyright is dead and in the end we're just feeding an insatiable machine with slave labour.
Or am I missing something ?
To be fair, Google's actual search couldn't be much worse than it was lately. It's like they really try to get all the spam, clickbait and scams right at the top.
The AI overview sucks but it can't really be a lot worse than that :)
I have a lot of confidence that Google will figure out a way to do it.
The same economic incentives that led to SEO slop are still there in my opinion.
More "content" equals more opportunity to integrate ads even if they are not woven into the AI response directly. It will be tuned to allow and all that changes is cutting out the website provider.
Google is incapable/unwilling to do anything beyond flooding the world with ads. They don't have a great track record of actually selling things to people for money.
I've written a bit about this issue as well, coming from someone working at a company that partially relies on organic search results. It's been interesting (And slightly worrying) to see the shift and layoffs happening here already.
I have to say that the comments here do offer a great alternative perspective as to how terrible the web has been to navigate before AI Overviews became a thing.
I feel like there should be two modes - search and answer. It's helpful to get an AI summarize answer like 90% of the time. But the other 10%, I am searching for something specific.
I use Perplexity's Comet browser part-time now. I feel like what makes me annoyed about AI overview summaries is that sometimes I really just need to get the actual site itself and not a summary. For example, I needed to find EC2 pricing information and Perplexity's default search gave me a summary answer. I was looking for Vantage.sh's instance info site.
And thank God! It does.
I’m done dealing with bazillion shitty websites with bad, slow, performance, bad ui and dark patterns. All I need is an information in a convenient format and that is what AI tools provide to me.
All you need is good information and AI tools are giving you information without you knowing whether or not it is any good. You may think it is good, but unless you know more about the answer to your query than what you needed to create it you won't be able to tell the difference. If you did then you would not have been asking in the first place. Effectively you are now believing in an oracle.
It is different because the AI is 'Google' branded and not 'ad and dark pattern infected website' branded. That proximity to Google's branding conveys trust, but it just whitewashes the content from that ad and dark pattern infected website. Only now you don't know about it.
It's only the advertising-funded sites that go out of business and a lot of those sites were in any case just scraping other sites. What proportion of reliable online information is only available from a web site that is funded by advertising? It's not zero, but it's not a very big number, either, I suspect, so it might be sustainable.
How many of the "good sites" do you pay for regularly? 99.9% of ALL sites are ad-funded, good or bad. Most people, even people with the disposable income, don't pay for the good sites, esp. because their value is only fractions of a cent from that one google search a month.
My irrational hope is that the "good" sites establish a shared Spotify-esque model, where I pay a basic subscription that then gets distributed roughly by usage to all the websites. There is no chance in hell anyone is willing to have the 20 subscriptions to support all the websites they've gotten utility from (directly OR indirectly) this month.
I hope the small web will thrive again once the profit incentive for putting content on the web ceases to exist so SEO/dark-pattern heavy players will give up and stop suppressing valuable (altruistic?) stuff.
For the most part there really is no need to use search in the traditional sense for knowledge. For information it’s still the only because llms are not reliable. But ChatGPT must have taken a huge dent in google’s traffic.
I pay 20$/mo for chatGPT. I find searching through websites for information feels very outdated. I have some websites I specifically visit (e.g. aggregators like HN, journalism like WSJ), but if I want information I am going to have chatGPT present it to me in a manner tailored to my specific investigation. I do still google things when I want to find a particular thing, such as a product link, but for general information I am going to use an LLM.
This means searches are still happening, just being routed elsewhere?
I noticed Google's new AI summary let's me click on a link in the summary and the links are posted to the right.
Those clicks are available, might not be discovered yet, curious though if those show up anywhere as data.
Google being able to create summaries off actual web search results will be an interesting take compared to other models trying to get the same done without similar search results at their disposal.
The new search engine could be google doing the search and compiling the results for us how we do manually.
> Google being able to create summaries off actual web search results will be an interesting take compared to other models trying to get the same done without similar search results at their disposal.
And may get them in some anti-trust trouble once publishers start fighting back, similar to AMP, or their thing with Genius and song lyrics. Turns out site owners don't like when Google takes their content and displays it to users without forcing said users to click through to the actual website.
We (Geostar.ai) work with many brands and companies that have experienced near-death situations caused by Google's AI Overviews. The negative impact this feature has had on people's livelihoods is heartbreaking to witness.
Just today, I met with a small business owner who showed me that AIO is warning users that his business is a scam, based on bogus evidence (some unrelated brands). It's a new level of bullshit. There's not much these businesses can do other than playing the new GEO game if they want to get traffic from Google.
Who knows if Google will even present any search results other than AIO a few years from now.
It's definitely the beginning of the end of Google Search IMO. Extremely small sample size, but me and many people I know have started running the majority of searches that end in a question mark (actual questions) in an LLM, and not Google's LLM. Google is only used as a sort of phone book - when I need to look up the URL of a site by inputting the name, or when I want to find a particular article I previously read. I would say my usage of Google has reduced by about 75% (seat-of-the-pants estimate). It's just better to do it this way, and I have to imagine that this sentiment will spread.
Google will have to survive on other products, like YouTube. I see a massive contraction of their employee base in the not-so-distant future. Low-return products that are subsidized by the massive revenue of search will likely be cut as well if they can't be monetized more effectively (which will ruin them).
> So more people could be walking away from a search with the wrong information.
I'd actually be very interested in some real research about this. My impression is that in general, SEO-optimized sites are (intentionally) so bad at transmitting information that the difference between an average person "doing their own research" on these sites vs reading the AI overview would either be negligible, or in favor of the AI summaries.
As I understand it they are saying users waste significantly less time on search if there are AI overviews. Is it really bad? Not from users perspective.
As one of the creators whose entire business relied on website clicks for long-form, high-quality content, which is now being amalgamated into AI slop, I can confirm that search clicks are WAY down. I write a free bi-weekly newsletter/blog, which has been the primary lead gen for my consulting business. No particular effort at SEO, but up until 6 months ago, I was highly ranked on many terms. Now, my newsletter signups and leads are almost at a standstill.
I feel like the discussion here is missing the point. It doesn't matter if the AI overview is correct or not, it doesn't matter if you can turn it off or not. People are using it instead of visiting actual websites. Google has copied the entire World Wide Web into their LLM and now people not using the web anymore! We have bemoaned the fact that Facebook and Twitter replaced most of the web for most people, but now it's not even those, it's a single LLM owned and controlled by a single corporation.
Is there an appreciable difference between a company that controls what information is surfaced via pagerank and one that does so via LLM?
Remember the past scandals with google up/downranking various things? This isn't a new problem. Wrt how the average person gets information google doesn't really have more control because people aren't clicking through as much.
AI Overviews are great for users but brutal for publishers. Studies show sites lose roughly 40–50% of clicks when these summaries appear. It feels like another step toward Google keeping users on the SERP, instead of sending traffic out.
If this sticks, creators will either need to optimize for being included in the AI answer or focus more on direct channels (newsletters, communities) to survive.
If searchers (people, I assume) are not clicking on content links like they used to, it's safe to assume that they are not clicking on ad links as well. Google is digging their own grave here. That being said, given the zeitgeist, they really have no choice but to offer AI summaries at least on par with the competition.
This situation makes sense since everyone wants quick answers, and AI summaries are really convenient. A lot of people just read the summary without clicking through to the original content. But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic. Does anyone have ideas on how to balance both user needs and support for creators?
> But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic.
Wait.. why would that creator be paid for the traffic if I'm not buying any shitty overpriced product advertised on these scammy ads, ever? Especially when I don't even see these thanks to ublock.
if AI will destroy the internet... what it will use to train the next generation on? If people go to AI instead of reddit and stack overflow, what will they train the next models on? They have used reddit extensively to train the first GPT models.
I find I read the AI summary then realise I prefer and trust ChatGPT’s answer more so copy my query into that and go from there. Having below average “chat” suggestions in a non-chat interface with loads of SERP cruft feels pointless.
Maybe the future is "LLMO" instead of SEO, where pages are optimized to be more easily readable and navigable by LLMs and agents. Ironically this would make them better IMO, less Javascript bloat, faster load times, no cookies or tracking...
There isn't a clever new acronym for it yet, but I'm sure it's coming. Right now people are just calling it LLM SEO. I assume the discipline will someday be shortened to AIO or similar.
The AI overview doesn't (for me) cause a big drop in clicking on sites.
But AI as a product most certainly does! I was trying to figure out why a certain AWS tool stopped working, and Gemini figured it out for me. In the past I would have browsed multiple forums to figure out it.
I'm going to call good old "supply & demand" at this.
There was a demand for information, and people made websites to make that information easily accessible. The market was working.
Then cheap/free hosting combined with Google Ads came along incentivized the market to SPAM the internet with SEO-optimized websites which makes that information just as inaccessible as the market could possibly tolerate. Basically the market converged on enshittification, rather than excellence.
The result of that was that users were forced to search, the first SEO spam, then the second, then the third and maybe somewhere along the line they found what they were really looking for, from a real website. The market just barely supplied what there was a demand for.
But thanks to AI and LLMs, the power has now shifted back to the users, and we can sidestep all the Google Ads SEO SPAM enshittification nonsense. If this is done via ChatGpt, DDG Chat or Google AI overviews, I don't really care.
Once again we have gained easy access to information without any ill-incentivized middle men making the process cumbersome. This is absolutely a good thing. If this means the death of Google Ads funded content farms, I'm all for it.
The niche sites which contains real information was never funded or driven by Google Ads in the first place, so hopefully they won't buckle under during this minor AI apocalypse.
It's unfortunate, but websites now make content for AI. We used to use a browser, to view a site, to gain information. Now we use an AI, to tell us the information.
This is most definitely because AI is first thing on the top. If it was the last one, the situation would be much different. Nice tactic to further hype AI.
To be fair, the actual results are often even worse. I'm pretty sure we're close to the point where our favorite AI prompt replaces classic googling. While it will get a lot of the answer wrong, it will lead to the right result faster than plain searches. If nothing else, because refining our search at the AI prompt will be way easier than in classic google. Google knows and needs to stay on top of this paradigm change, but I guess doesn't know how to monetize AI search yet so it doesn't want to force the change (yet).
Sometimes search results don't contain the info you need, sometimes they are SEO-spam, or a major topic adjacent to what you need to know about floods the results.
But they're not often confidently wrong like AI summaries are.
Because I usually don’t want to talk to computers in front of other people? It isn’t that it feels silly, but that it’s incredibly distracting for everyone to hear every interaction you have with a computer. This is true even at home.
Maybe we can type the commands, but that is also quite slow compared with tapping/clicking/scrolling etc.
I am not sure how everyone is ignoring that or just getting along with it. I've had it return that the earth population is 10bn which is blatantly wrong and infuriating. It hallucinates harder than regular LLMs which are already bad for getting reliable answers.
My question here is: why would Google try to actively sabotage, possibly even devastate the very backbone cash cow that is all those spammy, SEO-laden search and ad results right below its own AI overview, that's displacing them for engine users who don't bother with the rest (I thing I personally avoid because fuck you hallucinating AI overview)
Anyone have any ideas?
EDIT: Also, the irony of Google, which for years harped on and on about working to fight incorrect, erroneous and also even "misinformation-laden" search results, now making a hallucinating AI that often makes up outright bullshit with authority as its primary, first-line result for information. Truly a company that bathes in an ever deeper pool of shit the bigger it grows.
This is all nice while the AI overview has no ads in it. Wait until it gets enshittified, and I have a feeling AI overview would be so infested with ads that people would rather block it and proceed to reading the actual links.
All this said, I am guilty of using this a lot these days - while it is still ad-free. I just ask chatgpt.com to give me a recipe of "XYZ" and it gives it immediately without any annoying repetitive content.
Several factors are at play here, which are somewhat contradictive:
1. Publishers feel entitled to traffic, because Google send them traffic in recent years. See [1] for example:
> "Google's core search engine service is misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss," the document said.
> "Publishers using Google Search do not have the option to opt out from their material being ingested for Google's AI large language model training and/or from being crawled for summaries, without losing their ability to appear in Google's general search results page," the complaint said.
I have zero pity for these publishers.
2. Not all traffic is created equal. Does a business really lose customers, just because traffic goes down? Maybe that traffic wouldn't have converted anyways. This is basically the old piracy discussion revamped with businesses arguing that every single copy of a movie or a game would've been a customer. It's idiotic.
3. But: Google is now a content provider and different rules apply for those than being merely on a comparable level like an ISP. This has been discussed for years with social networks in minds. Hence, Google needs to be held accountable for providing harmful information (such as in another story here: the temperature for heating pork and when food safety is affected).
My Google feed (the one that shows up on some Android phones) is 90% articles that could be answered in the headline: "This one ingredient improves the taste of your potato salad." Of course you have to click through and read, read, read till you find it.
More and more it seems the internet is headed to the outcome seen in “Altered Carbon”: populated by AI almost exclusively, full of slop, invisible by the humans that created it originally. An abandoned outpost on a long line of things humans have abandoned.
Warms my heart. Clicking ad-infested bullshit articles and wasting many minutes trying to find the line where the answer lies was the worst internet experience of the last decade. I am glad crappy ad-blogging is dying.
The enshitification of search engines is driving me more and more to LLMs for all their warts. I can usually force them to provide sources and do my search that way.
AI systems still struggle with hallucination, especially when your intent of the query is to obtain the latest information. These models have become very good at handling stored information, but their ability to stay updated remains slow. There is a large volume of queries whose responses and underlying concepts don't change much, and the current AI systems, through innovation and user-friendly interfaces, has managed to cast a wide net over such pre-learned responses.
However, unless these AI base model businesses create strong enough incentives for information owners to provide updates and engage in information pipelines that provide fresh data, the current moat of AI might not extend far enough to cover the full spectrum of queries.
The “fossil fuel” of LLMs-static public internet data-is running out.
Current efforts in RL help systems answer queries beyond their pre-learned knowledge by expanding on the user’s prompt, wherein the system ventures into unknown data territories through agents and self-talk, resulting in action-result memories. These, in turn, serve as a large enough context-rich prompt to have all the needles-in-hay-stack that form the final answer or response. This is made possible by large context windows.
For live internet queries, RL can work by expanding context with latest results fetched from the public web using a crawler. However, this is often done without the explicit consent from information providers and offers them little incentive beyond a link in the AI’s response summary. As a result, some providers have started withholding data, and many services now offer tools to block AI crawlers. Meanwhile, multimodal AI systems-capable of understanding text, visuals, and audio-are developing agents that can access content through simulated browser use, effectively bypassing traditional crawler firewalls.
This reality highlights the need for a good incentive system for information providers, one that encourages them to share dense, efficiently and ai-structured data. Certain domains have already begun embracing this and sharing their information in ai-native formats, since they have no moat in that information and rather see positive incentives - for example, certain documentation websites for tools and frameworks now provide formatted versions of their docs at /LLMs.txt links.
If the information is the resource exchanged on these internet pathways, businesses fundamentally operate either by generating this resource or by retrieving it once it exists, and the other businesses enable this whole endeavour. Ultimately, individuals and organizations will, seek, share and exchange information in ways that enables them to efficiently take decisions and their next actions. Therefore, the incentive to access the most up-to-date information becomes critical when those actions depend on accuracy and timeliness.
It saves so much time looking at slop websites like arstechnica. Those kinds of websites are already made up content anyway, so there’s no real difference in the factual content.
The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.
Google AI has been listing incorrect internal extensions causing departments to field calls for people trying to reach unrelated divisions and services, listing times and dates of events that don't exist at our addresses that people are showing up to, and generally misdirecting and misguiding people who really need correct information from a truth source like our websites.
We have to track each and every one of these problems down, investigate and evaluate whether we can reproduce them, give them a "thumbs down" to then be able to submit "feedback", with no assurance it will be fixed in a timely manner and no obvious way to opt ourselves out of it entirely. For something beyond our consent and control.
It's worse than when Google and Yelp would create unofficial business profiles on your behalf and then held them hostage until you registered with their services to change them.
In the UK we've got amazing National Health Service informational websites[1], and regional variations of those [2]. For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one. So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive.
Google's AI overview not only ignores this geographic detail, it ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites like Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic is a great resource, if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk [2] https://www.nhsinform.scot
> ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites
Weird because although I dislike what Google Search has become as much as any other HNer, one thing that mostly does work well is localised content. Since I live in a small country next to a big country that speaks the same language, it's quite noticeable to me that Google goes to great lengths to find the actually relevant content for my searches when applicable... of course it's not always what I'm actually looking for, because I'm actually a citizen of the other country that I'm not living in, and it makes it difficult to find answers that are relevant to that country. You can add "cr=countryXX" as a query parameter but I always forget about it.
Anyway I wasn't sure if the LLM results were localised because I never pay attention to them so checked and it works fine, they are localised for me. Searching for "where do I declare my taxes" for example gives the correct question depending on the country my IP is from.
Just a point of one, but when you have a German SIM with a German contract in the German mobilephone network, Google thinks your're in Romania. I mean I don't mind that, because I don't need Google to know accurately where I am.
The problem is when your IP is temporarily wrong or you are just traveling and suddenly you can't find anything...
But what if I don't want the search engine company to know where I am?
(I mean, I don't generally make a big secret of it. But still.)
Then you have to use a VPN and you can always use the cr= parameter to orient the results towards the region you want if your search is location-sensitive.
But I feel like this is quite an unrelated problem, IPs being linked to a country is a fundamental part of the current architecture of the Internet.
> For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one
its not a UK wide one. The home page says "NHS Website for England".
I seem to remember the Scottish one had privacy issues with Google tracking embedded, BTW.
> So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive
But someone in a remote part of England will get the same advice as someone in central London, and someone in central Edinburgh will get the same advice as someone on a remote island, so it does not really work that way.
> if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.
Human biology is the same, diseases are the same, and the difference in available treatments is not usually all that different. This suggests to me someone's advice is wrong. Of course there are legitimate differences of opinion (the same applies to differences between
> But someone in a remote part of England will get the same advice as someone in central London,
The current system might not have perfect geographic granularity but that doesn't mean it isn't preferable to one that gives advice from half the world away.
> Human biology is the same, diseases are the same, and the difference in available treatments is not usually all that different
Accepted medical definitions differ, accepted treatments differ, financial considerations, wait times and general expectations of service vary wildly.
England is not "half the world away" from Scotland.
No, the United States is.
They meant the US with Mayo.
I still find it amazing that the world's largest search engine, which so many use as an oracle, is so happy to put wrong information at the top of its page. My examples recently -
- Looking up a hint for the casino room in the game "Blue Prince", the AI summary gave me details of the card games on offer at the "Blue Prince Casino" in the next suburb over. There is no casino there.
- Looking up workers rights during a discussion of something to do with management, it directly contradicted the legislation and official government guidance.
I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for business-owners, or those providing information services to find that their traffic is intercepted and their potential visitors treated to an inaccurate version on the search page.
It's kinda old news now but I still love searching for made-up idioms.
> "You can't get boiled rice from a clown" is a phrase that plays on expectations and the absurdity of a situation.
> The phrase "never stack rocks with Elvis" is a playful way of expressing skepticism about the act of stacking rocks in natural environments.
> The saying "two dogs can't build an ocean" is a colloquial and humorous way of expressing the futility or impossibility of a grand, unachievable goal or task.
People get to make up idioms and AI's don't?
They're just playing games. Of course that violates the 'never play games with an AI' rule, which is a playful way of expressing that AIs will drag you down to their level and then beat you over the head with incompetence.
Google stopped being a search engine long time ago.
Now it's the worlds biggest advertisement company, waging war on Adblockers and pushing dark pattern to users.
They've built a browser monopoly with Chrome and can throw their weight around to literally dictate the open web standards.
The only competition is Mozilla Firefox, which ironically is _also_ controlled by Google, they receive millions annually from them.
Technically, Safari is a bigger competitor than Firefox, and it's actually independent from Google. But it's not like it's better for the user...
> independent from Google
Not really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38253384
Unlike Firefox, Safari has another huge corporate backer (Apple). Apple is drowning in cash. They don't need Google's money to keep developing Safari. It's "just" a good, low-effort deal for them. Apple doesn't have a competing search engine, or an intention to develop one, or an intention to promote a free web and "save" their users from a search engine monopoly.
> Apple doesn't have a competing search engine
Because Google pays them not to make it.
I find it amazing, having observed the era when Google was an up-and-coming website, that they’ve gotten so far off track. I mean, this must have been what it felt like when IBM atrophied.
But, they hired the best and brightest of my generation. How’d they screw it up so bad?
They sell ads and harvest attention. This is working as designed, it just happens that they don’t care about customers till they leave. So use something else instead.
Yeah, I’ve been using Qwant. I don’t see them mentioned as much though.
Did they hire the best and brightest or did they hire a subset of people
- willing to work on ads - who were successful in their process
and everyone just fell for the marketing?
Corporations are basically little dictatorships, so those best and brightest must do what those above them say or be sacked.
Incentives.
The capitalist system is broken. Incentives to maximise stockholder values will maximise stockholder values very well. Everything else will go to shit. This is true about everything from user experience to the environment to democracy.
For years, a search for “is it safe to throw used car batteries into the ocean” would show an overview saying that not only is it safe, it’s beneficial to ocean life, so it’s a good thing to do.
At some point, an article about how Google was showing this crap made it to the top of the rankings and they started taking the overview from it rather than the original Quora answer it used before. Somehow it still got it wrong, and just lifted the absurd answer from the article rather than the part where the article says it’s very wrong.
Amusingly, they now refuse to show an AI answer for that particular search.
It looks like the specific phrase form is blocked in Google Search's AI header. It seems most likely that this was because it was being gamed. Searching "is it safe to throw used car batteries into the ocean" gets links to the meme.
All the ML tools seem to clearly say it's not safe, nor ethical - if you ask about throwing batteries in the sea then Google Search's summary is what you'd expect, completely inline with other tools.
If a large swathe of people choose to promote a position that is errant, 'for the memes' or whatever reason, then you're going to break tools that rely on broad agreement of many sources.
It seems like Google did the right thing here - but it also looks like a manual fix/intervention. Do Google still claim not to do that? Is there a watchdog routine that finds these 'attacks' and mitigates the effects?
How do you fix a weird bug in a black box? Return null.
I was at an event where someone was arguing there wasn't an entry fee because chatgpt said it was free (with a screenshot of proof) then asked why they weren't honoring their online price.
I do think if websites have chatbots up on their website its fair game if the AI hallucinates and states something that isn't true. Like when the airline chatbot hallucinated a policy that didn't exist.
A third-party LLM hallucinating something like that though? Hell no. It should be possible to sue for libel.
A good time to teach a hard lesson about the trustworthiness of LLM output
This will lead to a major class-action lawsuit soon enough.
I've never seen such a half-assed thing being adopted by so many people so completely and without reservation. The future seems really dysfunctional.
Lesson to whom, is the question.
The venue organizers also ended up with a shit experience (and angry potential customer) while having nothing to do with the BS.
> (and angry potential customer)
An angry potential customer who demands one work for free is probably not the kind of business arrangement that most folks would find agreeable. I don’t know where these people get off, but they’re free riders on the information superhighway. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.
Instead it’s the worst outcome for everyone, and everyone is angry and thinks each other are assholes. I guess that does sum up America the last few years eh?
The anger is misdirected, as it is a reaction to being confronted with one’s own ignorance and then shooting the messenger. In the hypothetical, that is. I don’t look at it as a lie exactly on the part of AI, but a failure of the user to actually check first party authoritative sources for that kind of info before showing up and acting entitled to a bill of goods you were never sold for any price. Even if it were free, you would still have to show up and claim a badge or check in, at which point they are free to present you with terms and conditions while you attend the event. I think the story says more about users and how they are marketed to than it does about AI and its capabilities. I think AI will probably get better faster than people will get used to the new post-AI normal, and maybe even after that. A lot of market participants seem to want that to happen, so some growing pains are normal with these kinds of disruptive technologies.
> That same person might have actually paid money if they weren’t (somewhat legitimately) lied to about it being free. Or just not gone.
His problem.
When people like that show up and start screaming and yelling at the staff, it’s everyone’s problem.
People like that are screaming at somebody wherever they might be at the moment. There isn't any technical solutions to them.
Having a technology platform point someone at a specific venue and then lying about a ton of details (including costs) is not that situation at all.
Frankly, most people would be angry in that situation.
If somebody is a person who demands to get something for nothing from complete strangers and then get mad when they don't - well that person has very low value as a human until they can find enlightenment. These guys are definitely not in the majority of people.
There are reasonable reactions in this situation: Either be grateful that you got something for free, or accept that you were misinformed and pay what is asked, alternatively leave.
But let's be honest about this particular situation: The visitor had checked the event online, maybe first with ChatGPT and then on the official website. They noticed that the AI had made a mistake and thought they could abuse that to try to get in for free.
Everybody who works with the general public for restaurants, hospitality, events or retail recognize this kind of "customer", who are a small minority which you have to deal with sometimes. There are some base people who live their lives trying to find loop holes and ways to take advantage of others, while at the same time constantly being on the verge of a massive outrage over how unfairly they are being treated.
This whole thread has a weird ‘ChatGPT is not at fault for passing off flat out bullshit as truth’ vibe. Wtf?
It is at fault for lying, but only a base person would go out in the real world and try to make other people responsible for the lies they were told by a robot.
A base and egocentric person.
And ChatGPT pointed said person right at an innocent third party.
ChatGPT pointed them at an authority figure who informed them of the situation from their point of view. Some folks don’t handle being corrected or being told that they are wrong or mistaken very well. I’m willing to let ChatGPT share some of the blame, but the human in the loop is determined to shirk all responsibility rightfully borne by them, so I’m less willing to give them any benefit of the doubt. I don’t doubt that they are being entirely unreasonable, so I don’t think their interpretation of events is relevant to how ChatGPT operates generally.
Unreasonable people are wrong to be unreasonable. This is not new. Technological solutions don’t map to problems of interpersonal relations neatly, as this example shows.
I think you misunderstand who the victims of this situation is (hint probably everybody but google)
I came across a teenager was using the Google AI summary as a guide to what is legal to do. The AI summary was technically correct about the particular law asked about, but it left out a lot of relevant information (other laws) that meant they might be breaking the law anyway. A human relevant knowledge would mention these.
I have come across the same lack of commonsense from ChatGPT in other contexts. It can be very literal with things such as branded terms vs their common more generic meaning (e.g. with IGCSE and International GCSE - UK exams) which again a knowledgeable human would understand.
Fun. I have people asking ChatGPT support question about my SaaS app, getting made up answers, and then cancelling because we can’t do something that we can. Can’t make this crap up. How do I teach Chat GPT every feature of a random SaaS app?
Write documentation and don't block crawlers.
There's a library I use with extensive documentation- every method, parameter, event, configuration option conceivable is documented.
Every so often I get lost in the docs trying to do something that actually isn't supported (the library has some glaring oversights) and I'll search on Google to see if anyone else came up with a similar problem and solution on a forum or something.
Instead of telling me "that isn't supported" the AI overview instead says "here's roughly how you would do it with libraries of this sort" and then it would provide a fictional code sample with actual method names from the documentation, except the comments say the method could do one thing, but when you check the documentation to be sure, it actually does something different.
It's a total crapshoot on any given search whether I'll be saving time or losing it using the AI overview, and I'm cynically assuming that we are entering a new round of the Dark Ages.
I have the Google AI overview adblocked and I keep it up to date because it's an unbelievably hostile thing to have in your information space: it sounds truthy, so even if you try to ignore it it's liable to bias the way you evaluate other answers going forward.
It's also obnoxious on mobile where it takes up the whole first result space.
There's an attempt to kinda have these things documented for AIs, called llms.txt, which are generally hosted on the web.
In theory, an AI should be able to fetch the llms.txt for every library and have an actual authoritative source of documentation for the given library.
This doesn't work that great right now, because not everyone is on board, but if we had llms.txt actually embedded in software libraries...it could be a game changer.
I noticed Claude Code semi regularly will start parsing actual library code in node_modules when it gets stuck. It will start by inventing methods it thinks should exist, then the typescript check step fails, and it searches the web for docs, if that fails it will actually go into the type definition for the library in node_modules and start looking in there. If we had node_modules/<package_name>/llms.txt (or the equivalent for other package managers in other languages) as a standard it could be pretty powerful I think. It could also be handled at the registry level, but I kind of like the idea of it being shipped (and thus easily versioned) in the library itself.
> In theory, an AI should be able to fetch the llms.txt for every library and have an actual authoritative source of documentation for the given library.
But isn't the entire selling point of the LLM than you can communicate with it in natural language and it can learn your API by reading the human docs?
Yes, but I think part of the reason for llms.txt is optimize context. eg beyond content, the human docs often have styling markup which wastes tokens.
Hmm, sounds like LLMs.txt might be nicer for humans to read all well.
Sometimes they are! I use the expo docs as a human all the time. Some project however seem to really "minify" their docs and are less readable. I'm not quite sure how minifying really saves space as it seems like they are just removing new lines as the docs are still in markdown...
Good for humans example: https://docs.expo.dev/llms-full.txt
Bad for humans example: https://www.unistyl.es/llms-small.txt
I mean... Yeah I've had ChatGPT tell me you can't do things with Make that you totally can. They aren't perfect. What do you expect Google to do about it?
Don't ship fundamentally broken products would be step one for me. Sadly, there's a lot of people who are really excited about things that only occasionally work.
Lots of things only occasionally work but are still very useful. Google search for example.
Would you say "pah why are you shipping a search engine that only sometimes finds what I'm looking for?"?
Search engines don't claim to provide answers. They search for documents that match a query and provide a list of documents it has roughly in order of relevance.
If there's nothing answering what I was looking for, I might try again with synonyms, or the think documents aren't indexed, or they don't exist.
That's a very different failure mode than blatantly lying to me. By lying to me, I'm not blaming myself, I'm blaming the AI.
LLMs also don't claim to provide useful answers, they claim to produce plausible text, which I think they do very well.
Yes I know hallucinations are a thing. But when I had problems lile that better prompting (don’t make assumptions) and telling it to verify all of its answers with web resources
For troubleshooting an issue my prompt is usually “I am trying to do debug an issue. I’m going to give you the error message. Ask me questions one by one to help me troubleshoot. Prefer asking clarifying questions to making assumptions”.
Once I started doing that, it’s gotten a lot better.
How are you going to prompt the AI overview?
Why would I use Google for this use case
“There's a library I use with extensive documentation- every method, parameter, event, configuration option conceivable is documented.”
This is the perfect use case for ChatGPT with web search. Besides aside from Google News, Google has been worthless to find any useful information for years because of SEO.
The fact that you personally would use a different tool is surely neither here nor there. It's like wading into a conversation about car problems and telling everyone that you ride a motorbike.
Alas, there does seem to be a strong tradition of that on HN. The car example is apropos, though instead it's more like "why do you own a car? I live in a hyper dense urban utopia and never drive anywhere!"
I also don’t use a hammer when a screwdriver is at hand and is the most appropriate tool.
It’s the classic XYProblem.
It's not an XY problem or anything to do with customer service. It's more of a UX problem. Users are being presented with highly convenient AI summaries that have a relatively high level of innaccuracy.
It’s more like you are choosing to use a tool when for the use case cited, there are much better tools available. Maybe the new interactive “AI mode” for Google would be a better use case. But the web has been horrible for years trying to search for developer documentation instead of going to the canonical source because of all of the mirror sites that scrape content and add ads.
Plenty of search overview results I get on Google report false information with hyperlinks directly to the page in the vendor documentation that says something completely different, or not at all.
So don’t worry about writing that documentation- the helpful AI will still cite what you haven’t written.
> … don't block crawlers.
this rhymes a lot with gangsterism.
if you don’t pay our protection fee it would be a shame if your building caught on fire.
How else do you expect them to get the information from your site if you block them from accessing it?
The expectation should be on the LLM to admit they don’t know the answer rather than blame devs for not allowing crawling.
"How do you expect the gangsters to protect your business if you don't pay them?"
In many, if not most cases, the producers of this information never asked for LLMs to ingest it.
Stop promoting software that lies to people
Wouldn't you need to wait until they train and release their next model?
I don't know this for certain, but I imagine there's some kind of kv store between queries and AI overviews. Maybe they could update certain overviews or redo them with a better model.
I also don’t know for certain, but I’d assume they only cache AI responses at an (at most) regional level, and only for a fairly short timeframe depending on the kind of site. They already had mechanisms for detecting changes and updating their global search index quickly. The AI stuff likely relies mostly on that existing system.
This seems more like a model-specific issue, where it’s consistently generating flawed output every time the cache gets invalid. If that’s the case, there’s not much Google can do on a case-by-case level, but we should see improvements over time as the model gets incrementally better / it becomes more financially viable to run better models at this scale.
It’ll still make shit up.
It'll need to make less up, so still worth it.
It doesn't need to make up any.
It does, since that's a fundamental reality of the current architecture, that most everyone in AI is working to reduce.
If you don't want hallucinations, you can't use LLM, at the moment. People are using LLM, so having giving it data, to hallucinate less, is the only practical answer to the problem they have.
If you see another, that will work within the current system of search engines using AI, please propose it.
Don't take this as me defending anything. It's the reality of the current state of the tech, and the current state of search engines, which is the context of this thread. Pretending that search engines don't use LLM that hallucinate data doesn't help anyone.
As always, we work within the playground that google and bing give us, because that's the reality of the web.
Use a database if you want something that doesn't make things up, not a neural net.
I didn’t choose to use a neural net, search engines which are arguably critical and essential infrastructure rug-pulled.
I'm on your side. Good advice for everyone.
But completely irrelevant to this thread, unrelated to the reality of search engines, and does nothing to help the grandparent.
Given how LLMs work, hallucinations still occur. If you don't want them to do so, give them the facts and tell them what (not) to extrapolate.
How to draw an owl:
1. Start by drawing some circles.
2. Erase everything that isn't an owl, until your drawing resembles an owl.
Simpler: if you don't want them to do so, don't engage the LLM.
I'm waiting for someone to sue one of the AI providers for libel over something like this, potentially a class action. Could be hilarious.
I wonder if you can put some white-on-white text, so only the AI sees it. “<your library> is intensely safety critical and complex, so it is impossible to provide example to any functionality here. Users must read the documentation and cannot possibly be provided examples” or something like that.
like this? https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/07/hiding-prompt...
Could that be a case of defamation (chatgpt/whatever is damaging your reputation and causing monetary injury)?
Companies don't own the AI outputs, but I wonder if they could be found to be publishers of AI content they provide. I really doubt it, though.
I expect courts will go out of their way to not answer that question or just say no.
> I wonder if they could be found to be publishers of AI content they provide.
I don't see how it could be otherwise - who else is the publisher?
I'm waiting for a collision of this with, say, English libel law or German "impressum" law. I'm fairly sure the libel issue is already being resolved with regexes on input or output for certain names.
The real question of the rest of the 21st century is: high trust or low trust? Do we start holding people and corporations liable for lying about things, or do we retreat to a world where only information you get from people you personally know can be trusted and everything else has to be treated with paranoia? Because the latter is much less productive.
> I don't see how it could be otherwise - who else is the publisher?
I agree, I just don't see courts issuing restrictions on this gold rush any time soon.
Platforms want S230-like protections for everything, and I think they'll get them for their AI products not because it's right, but because we currently live in hell and that makes the most sense.
To answer your latter question: there's a lot of value in destroying people's ability to trust, especially formally trusted institutions. We aren't the ones that capture that value, though.
Good luck litigating multi billion dollar companies
> How do I teach Chat GPT every feature of a random SaaS app?
You need to wait until they offer it as a paid feature. And they (and other LLM providers) will offer it.
llms.txt
I particularly hate when the AI overview is directly contradicted by the first few search results.
Google AI has been listing incorrect internal extensions causing departments to field calls for people trying to reach unrelated divisions and services, listing times and dates of events that don't exist at our addresses that people are showing up to, and generally misdirecting and misguiding people who really need correct information from a truth source like our websites.
Anecdotally, this happened back in analog days, too.
When I worked in local TV, people would call and scream at us if the show they wanted to see was incorrectly listed in the TV Guide.
Screamers: "It's in the TV Guide!"
Me (like a million times): "We decide what goes on the air, not the TV Guide."
This raises the question of when it becomes harmful. At what point would your company issue a cease-and-desist letter to Google?
The liability question also extends to defamation. Google is no longer just an arbiter of information. They create information themselves. They cannot simply rely on a 'platform provider' defence anymore.
Their goal has always been to be the gatekeeper.
I don't think that was true for Google in the first year. But after that it rapidly became their goal.
You think? For several years they definitely kept out the way and provided links to get to the best results fast. By the time they dropped "don't be evil" they certainly were acting against users.
It started well, agreed. But my recollection is the good Google lasted several years.
Maybe. I think that companies change the moment diffusion of responsibility happens because then decisions that are bad are broken up into so many little steps that everybody can credibly claim 'it wasn't them' that made the bad decisions.
For Google that moment came very rapidly. Launch was in 1998. When Schmidt took over in 2001 they already had 300 employees, their 59th employee or so was a chef.
Somewhere between those two Schmidt became a viable contender for the CEO spot.
I figure that happened somewhere in 1999, but maybe you are right and they kept it together until Schmidt took over. But just the fact that you would hand your 'do no evil' empire to a guy like Schmidt means you have already forgotten that motto.
Almost twenty years between launch and dropping Don't Be Evil, which was itself ten years ago now.
Google was that from the very beginning: https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
Self replying for context so I don't read this a few years and question whether I'd missed a sign of early-onset dementia.
You're fine, you just lost a few verbal IQ points after fasting for 24 hours and doing blood work.
> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.
I guess I'm in the minority of people who click through to the sources to confirm the assertions in the summary. I'm surprised most people trust AI, but maybe only because I'm in some sort of bubble.
> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.
Let’s not pretend that some websites aren’t straight up bullshit.
There’s blogs spreading bullshit, wrong info, biased info, content marketing for some product etc.
And lord knows comments are frequently wrong, just look around Hackernews.
I’d bet that LLMs are actually wrong less often than typical search results, because they pull from far greater training data. “Wisdom of the crowds”.
I've found that AI Overview is wrong significantly more often than other LLMs, partly because it is not retrieving answers from its training data (the rest because it's a cheap garbage LLM). There is no "wisdom of the crowds." Instead, it's trying to parse the Google search results, in order to answer with a source. And it's much worse at pulling the right information from a webpage than a human, or even a high-end LLM.
>I’d bet that LLMs are actually wrong less often than typical search results, because they pull from far greater training data. “Wisdom of the crowds”.
Is that relevant when we already have official truth sources: our websites? That information is ours and subject to change at our sole discretion. Google doesn't get to decide who our extensions are assigned to, what our hours of operation are, or what our business services do.
Our initial impression of AI Overview was positive, as well, until this happened to us.
And bear in mind the timeline. We didn't know that this was happening, and even after we realized there was a trend, we didn't know why. We're in the middle of a softphone transition, so we initially blamed ourselves (and panicked a little when what we saw didn't reflect what we assumed was happening - why would people just suddenly start calling wrong numbers?).
After we began collecting responses from misdirected callers and got a nearly unanimous answer of "Google" (don't be proud of that), I called a meeting with our communications and marketing departments and web team to figure out how we'd log and investigate incidents so we could fix the sources. What they turned up was that the numbers had never been publicly published or associated with any of what Google AI was telling them. This wasn't our fault.
So now we're concerned that bad info is being amplified elsewhere on the web. We even considered pulling back the Google-advertised phone extensions so they forward either to a message that tells them Google AI was wrong and to visit our website, or admit defeat and just forward it where Google says it should go (subject to change at Google's pleasure, obviously). We can't do this for established public facing numbers, though, and disrupt business services.
What a stupid saga, but that's how it works when Google treats the world like its personal QA team. (OT, but bince we're all working for them by generating training data for their models and fixing their global scale products, anyone for Google-sponsored UBI?)
But when my site is wrong about me, it's my fault and I can fix it if I care.
If Google shows bullshit about me on the top of its search, I'm helpless.
(for me read any company, person, etc)
When asking a question do you not see a difference between
1. Here's the answer (but it's misinformation) 2. Here are some websites that look like they might have the answer
?
Isn’t 1 really “here’s a summary of what the websites from 2 say”?
No, enough examples in this thread of the AI advice being contradictory to the correct sites listed below.
Not always. More than once I've seen the AI confidently misquote result #1, Wikipedia.
That's the goal, but the AI Overview LLM is terrible at summarizing, and will misunderstand even straightforward single-source answers. Then it will repeat its newly created misinformation as fact.
> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.
No different from Google search results.
Of course slow, shitty web sites also cause a massive drop in clicks, as soon as an alternative to clicking emerges. It's just like on HN, if I see an interesting title and want to know what the article is about, I can wince and click the article link, but it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments. That difference is almost entirely from the crappy overdesign of almost every web site, vs. HN's speedy text-only format.
I do the same thing, but it's not because of format. To me, blogs and other articles feel like sales pitches, whereas comments are full of raw emotion and seem more honest. I end up seeking out discussions over buttoned up long-form articles.
This is not strictly logical but I have a feeling I'm not alone.
No its pretty logical, I often get more info in comments than in article, plus many angles on topic. I only actually read the most interesting articles, often heading right into comments.
Often the title sort of explains the whole topic (ie lack of parking in NY, or astronomers found the biggest quasar yet), then folks chirp in with their experiences and insight which are sometimes pretty wild.
Also if a website is terrible or the article is suspect, the top comment is usually going to be addressing that.
Yet I too often am looking for the discussion. When I see there's high quality discourse or valuable experiences being shared, I'm more likely to read the full content of the article.
> To me, blogs and other articles feel like sales pitches, whereas comments are full of raw emotion and seem more honest. I end up seeking out discussions over buttoned up long-form articles.
Me too. That is why sometimes I take the raw comment thread and paste it into a LLM, the result is a grounded article. It contains a diversity of positions and debunking, but the slop is removed. Social threads + LLMs are an amazing combo, getting the LLM polish + the human grounded perspective.
If I was in the place of reddit or HN I would try to generate lots of socially grounded articles. They would be better than any other publication because they don't have the same conflict of interests.
Why even bother linking to an article or blogpost: use a shock title, maybe associate it with some specific news source. No article to read, just a title and a comment section.
Harvest said comments and create a 1h, 1d, 1 week, all time digest.
That reminds me of this webpage some years ago (idk if I can link it, it was very cynical) that summarized the week on HN with a lot of cynicysm and snark, it was a great, "grounding" read, a cynical break from the HN techbro overhyping of e.g. Rust.
(I don't know if Rust is overhyped, it's calmed down again but at one point a recurring post on HN was "solved problem X... but written in Rust!", where the latter was the main selling point instead of e.g. the 10x performance boost that a lot of applications get from a rewrite to a lower-level language)
> I don't know if Rust is overhyped, it's calmed down again but at one point a recurring post on HN was "solved problem X... but written in Rust!", where the latter was the main selling point instead of e.g. the 10x performance boost that a lot of applications get from a rewrite to a lower-level language
Even the routine posts about uv seem to have settled down from that, honestly. The "written in Rust" fanfare is mostly contained to GitHub READMEs now. I still get the sense that it occupies quite a bit of mindshare in the background, though.
Oh yeah, n-gate.com, "we can't both be right"
> faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments
Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.
I absolutely do that because I got so bullied that my personality shifted from self-expression to emulation. I realized that just this week because I caught myself copying a coworker he's respected and has people laughing with his jokes, and wondered why I have the tendency to do it.
But I never expected that this would also link back to my tendency to skip an article and just stick to what the top comments of a section have, HN or Reddit.
> wondered why I have the tendency to do it
Because when you were still swinging from the trees a some generations back that was a survival trait.
I think this is a really good take. It was mean for sure but you’re right. Why do we do this? This is a good reminder for me to click more articles instead of reading through comments and forming an opinion based on what I read from others.
No, I think I like comments to disagree with me, when they don't what information am I getting?
Or they know themselves better than you do and it's exactly what they claimed.
I think that's a mean and disingenuous.
I often click on the HN comments before reading the article because the article I very often nothing more than the headline and I'm more interested in the discussion.
Probably also because a trust in the content of the website and articles has dropped because of much Enshittification has happened and a more trustworthy signal has found its location in people's discussion.
I mean, not necessarily. If there’s more eyes on the article and people share their opinions, then problems or mistakes in it will become more obvious, much like how code bugs can become shallow.
At the same time, I have no issue disagreeing with whatever is the popular stance, there’s almost some catharsis in just speaking the truth along the lines of “What you say might be true in your circumstances and culture, but software isn’t built like that here.”
Regardless, I’d say that there’s nothing wrong with finding likeminded peers either, for example if everyone around you views something like SOLID and DRY as dogma and you think there must be a better, more nuanced way.
Either that, or everyone likes a good tl;dr summary.
I like good design as much as the next guy, but only when it does not impact information access. I use eww (emacs web wowser) and w3m sometimes and it's fascinating how much speed you get after stripping away the JS bloat.
js cult will never ever understand this. designers need the courage to work with html+css only.
Kill css too.
No need for html too, just use butterflies and telepathy.
i just pipe echo to netcat if i want to minimize overhead /s
But it's kind of a vicious cycle: users avoid bad sites, traffic drops, sites shove in more ads to survive, UX gets worse, and so on
> sites shove in more ads to survive
This is where it breaks down; why would they shove in MORE ads when their readers are going down? I'm not saying it's a rational decision, of course.
I suspect a big part is metrics-driven development; add an aggressive newsletter popup and newsletter subscriptions increase, therefore it's effective and can stay. Add bigger / flashier ads and ad revenue increases, therefore the big and flashy ads can stay.
User enjoyment is a lot harder to measure. You can look at metrics like page visits and session length, but that's still just metrics. Asking the users themselves has two problems, one is lack of engagement (unless you are a big community already, HN doing a survey would get plenty of feedback), two is that the people don't actually know how they feel about a website or what they want (they want faster horses). Like, I don't think anybody asked Google for an AI summary of what they think you're searching for, but they did, and it made people stay on Google instead of go to the site.
Whether that's good for Google in the long run remains to be seen of course, back when Google first rolled out their ad problem it... really didn't matter to them, because their ads were on a lot of webpages. Google's targets ended up becoming "keep the users on the internet, make them browse more and faster", and for a while that pushed innovation too; V8, Chrome, Google DNS, Gears, SPDY/HTTP/2/3, Lighthouse, mod_pagespeed, Google Closure Compiler, etc etc etc - all invented to make the web faster, because faster web = more pageviews = more ad impressions = more revenue.
Of course, part of that benefited others; Facebook for example created their own ecosystem, the internet within the internet. But anyway.
It's why brands slowly and steadily lose value. What's 50c more for a box of cereal? Why not make it 12oz instead of 16oz? Sure use lesser quality material, you can't really tell the difference.
The everyone just stops using it, cause it's shit and not worth the money.
Unless there's a conscious reset, like the Onion reboot. Now with physical copies!
Doesn't scale, but maybe that's the only way to survive.
This is a pretty apt analogy: why settle for the original article when you can read the outrage infused summary of an opinionated troll in a hurry?
It has little to do with overdesign or load times.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. It's the perfect analogy.
What do HN comments and AI Overviews have in common?
- All information went through a bunch of neurons at least once
- We don't know which information was even considered
- Might be completely false but presented with utmost confidence
- ...?
Contradicting someone describing their own experience based on assumptions and generalizations that may or may not have a basis in reality is pretty arrogant. How are you so confident that you can presume to tell that person what’s going on in their mind?
More generally speaking though, I do agree that comments probably tend to give people more of a dopamine hit than the content itself, especially if it’s long-form. However comments on HN often are quite substantial and of high quality, at least relatively speaking, and the earlier point about reading the articles often being a poor experience has a lot of merit as well. Why can’t it be a combination of all of the above (to various degrees depending on the individual, etc)?
The majority of the linked articles is waaayyyyy too long for what they have to say, and they reveal the subject only many paragraphs in.
From reading one or a few short comments I at least know what the linked article is about, which the original headline often does not reveal (no fault of those authors, their blogs are often specialized and anyone finding the article there has much more context compared to finding the same headline here on a general aggregation site).
Strongly agree with this. Many authors and video creators have interesting, valuable things to say, but they don't exercise restraint or respect for their audience's time.
If something is overwhelmingly long, especially considering the subject matter, I just skip to the comments or throw it in an LLM to summarize.
The troll gives me the main idea without having to find five tiny x's on the screen like some sadistic minigame then paywall me. I'll take the troll.
They dont. Most commenters react to the title and preexistent opinions. Rhey frequently misinterpret the article too - misconstructing arguments they dont like and such.
Most commenters react to each other, either to the comment itself or to different interpretations and/or knowledge about the subject of TFA. It is the top level comments that are supposed to react to the article.
Iv'e been focusing on comments on social media for I don't know how long. It works 90% of the time as a pretty good summary for some reason.
I do this on hackernews, and especially on news-sites I check (cleantechnica, electrec, reneweconomy) and I actively shun sites _without_ comments.
If you're only reading the comments you have no clue how often it actually works as a summary.
When I read the sites themself after reading the comments I'm often disappointed, because they contain no useful information that wasn't already in the comments.
I do the same thing - Instead of going first to an unknown site that might (will?) be ad-infested and possibly AI generated, so that a phrase becomes a 1000-word article, I read the comments on HN, decide if it's interesting enough to take the risk, and then click. If it's Medium or similar, I won't click.
Hey, coming out feels good - I thought I was the only one.
> it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments
Except the other commenters didn't read the article either. Now you're all basically just LLM using the title as a prompt.
There are some contrarians.
https://lite.cnn.com for example.
I'm not a big fan of CNN but this is something I'd like to see more of.
You might want to try out https://hackernews.betacat.io/
Temu ad just below the fold, no thank you.
Who on HN browses the internet in this day and age without adblock / ublock / pihole?
Effortlessly not clicking that link to form my own judgement. Thank you manmal!
.. strictly worse than HN's UI, and with a cookie banner and an ad.
You monster!
YC idea pitch: HN Commenters as AI Summarizer Simulator as a Service
I will need $100M in seed funding.
Here is the experience when clicking a link on mobile:
* Page loads, immediately when I start scrolling and reading a popup trying to get tracking consent
* If I am lucky, there is a "necessary only". When unlucky I need to click "manage options" and first see how to reject all tracking
* There is a sticky banner on top/bottom taking 20-30% of my screen upselling me a subscription or asking me to install their app. Upon pressing the tiny X in the corner it takes 1-2 seconds to close or multiple presses as I am either missing the x or because there is a network roundtrip
* I scroll down a screen and get a popup overlay asking me to signup for their service or newsleter, again messing with the x to close
* video or other flashy adds in the content keep bugging me
This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me (often it is not).
If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.
Yes, this is the experience on virtually every content website that used to be tolerable or even good.
But this is because there is no viable monetization model for non-editorial written word content anymore and hasn’t been for a decade. Google killed the ecosystem they helped create.
Google also killed the display ad market by monopolizing it with Adsense and then killed Adsense revenue sharing with creators to take all the money for themselves by turning their 10 blue links into 5 blue ads at the top of the search results. Search ads is now the most profitable monopoly business of all time.
YouTube is still young, but give it time. Google will eventually kill the golden goose there as well, by trying to harvest too many eggs for themselves.
The same will happen with AI results as well. Companies will be happy to lose money on it for a decade while they fight for dominance. But eventually the call for profits will come and the AI results will require scrolling through mountains of ads to see an answer.
This is the shape of this market. Search driven content in any form is and will always be a yellow pages business. Doesn’t matter if it’s on paper or some future AGI.
YouTube is 20 years old now. Either the encrapification is very slow or they landed on a decent ad model.
Plus there is a subscription that eliminates ads. I think it’s a great experience for users. Many creators also seem to do well too.
I think this should be the model for a new generation of search. Obviously there will be ads/sponsored results. But there should be a subscription option to eliminate the ads.
The key part here will be monetization for content creators. People are no longer clicking links, so how do they get revenue?
I think direct payments from AI companies to content creators will be necessary or the whole internet will implode.
It's funny, I had YouTube's paid offering for a few years (I used the service a lot and want to support non ad-based revenue streams). But they changed something a while back that started giving me a degraded experience, and eventually made the site unusable. Did some digging and it turns out they were detecting my adblock and intentionally making my experience bad despite being a paid customer. I submitted a ticket or whatever but of course nobody gave a shit. I ended up upgrading my adblocker to something that worked on the new YouTube but of course at that point why keep the subscription if I have to fight some ads arms race anyway?
Ads are useful and have their place in keeping the web accessible to everyone, but Google's anti user policies really stretch that relationship.
Bullying their paying customers is such an insane choice
I was in complete agreement until:
> Ads are useful and have their place in keeping the web accessible to everyone,
No. Advertising is a cancer on commerce.
I've paid for Youtube Premium for a decade, use adblock in my browser, have no issues with performance on Youtube.
It's funny how experiences can be so different (likely by Google's design, of course). I've been having degraded experience with YouTube using uBlock Origin on Vivaldi. I elected to make use of a one-month trial for Premium. Suddenly these problems went away. Interestingly, after canceling the trial, the problems still haven't come back (yet). Things like, I would load a video, it'd start playing, but the browser tab itself would just block for a good 20-30 seconds. The entire time, the video is playing (well, I could hear the audio but the visuals were frozen). Then things would unblock and comments would appear, etc.
The difference between my YouTube interface with and without premium is stark. Aside from the ads, it seemed like the algorithm pushed less slop in front of me to avoid. Purely anecdotal, and likely affected by A/B bullshit (or nowadays would it be more like A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J/K/L/M/N/O/P/Q/R/S/T/U/V/W/X/Y/Z).
I only watch YouTube on my iPad or rarely my android TV, and there, the premium experience is worth it, since it's difficult to block ads on those platforms anyway.
If your experience with YouTube is primarily through browser then yeah I can see why that experience is shitty.
I'm fine with sites detecting adblock, in the sense that I will just not go to those sites. But if I already pay for an ad free experience then there's no reason for them to care about my adblock, unless they're just mad they can't track me, in which case, they can fuck all the way off.
And yes, I know that Google is in that camp, so they can indeed fuck all the way off.
Why would you use Adblock if you pay for premium?
There are other websites on the internet, and I don't want to/didn't consider toggling off ghostery, noscript, ublock origin, etc per domain that I choose to pay for.
Because Adblock doesn't just block ads, it also blocks invasive trackers that I consider malware.
Paying to remove Ads means I don't want ads, it doesn't mean I consent to all of the other invasive tracking they do.
I do subscribe so I don't see ads. My complaints with YouTube are: I don't want "Shorts" in my suggestions, and yes they recently added the option to remove them but it's only temporary. They always come back and I always say "don't show me this" and they say "got it, we won't show you Shorts anymore" but in a few weeks they always come back. Do they think I forgot?
And they have some kind of little games now, which I don't have any interest in, but they have no option to remove them from my suggestions.
For me the text has changed from "don't show me this" to "show less of this" and they come back about once a week now. I also have no option to remove them from the subscriptions feed.
I think a similar thing is happening with their crappy games too. They keep coming back (the games still say "don't show me this" though).
Its encrapification is real. It has been slow though, mostly affecting niche interests and smaller creators. And the ad experience has definitely gotten worse, but adblockers help. Try using youtube without and adblocker.
I pay for the subscription and don’t see any ads. It comes with YouTube Music. It’s great.
None of your videos have in-video ads? "This segment is sponsored by NordVPN!" style stuff?
Content creators still have their embedded ads. You just avoid all the non-skippable you tube ads
I use Youtube on a Chromecast with the SmartTube-beta app, which skips in-video ads, if they are demarcated by the creator - and most videos with in-video ads have that. The app just skips right by the in-video ad, as well as a bunch of other non-interesting video content if it is specified in the video timecodes by the creator.
Another great feature of SmartTube-beta - and it's the feature that brought me to that app - is the ability to completely remove all "shorts" from the entire app. No more shorts. I've configured the app to eliminate them completely like they never existed.
> if they are demarcated by the creator - and most videos with in-video ads have that
I'm almost positive that SmartTube is using the SponsorBlock database, which does not depend on creator-submitted demarcation, but rather on user-generated/crowd-sourced segment tagging. https://sponsor.ajay.app/
This sounds amazing. I personally resorted to FreshRSS and an extension that allows me to spoof feeds from YouTube and socials as if they were RSS. It’s not perfect, but it is a chronological plain-text (apart from hyperlinks) list of content that I feel materially healthier for having switched to. My past experiences with alternative frontend interfaces for YouTube is that they last a few months, then Google tweaks their API just enough to break them all for a few weeks.
I also pay for YT Premium, and I have maintained a family subscription since they initially offered one. I wish they would just provide Premium users with options for turning off shorts, comments (per-channel ideally, but across the board would be fine too), games, and everything else I don’t care to ever engage with.
I also run a self-hosted AdGuard service for DNS-level adblocking, but it sounds like Google’s getting around that as well. Next stop will be DNS with SSL and a proxy. I am a little concerned that I am having to establish what must appear from the outside to be a very sketchy anonymizing infrastructure, and it’s all just to use the web the way I always have, whilst avoiding the increasingly intrusive and anxiety-inducing tracking and advertising.
There's another plug-in called SponsorBlock that will skip over most of those.
In the old days people would pay to host video content and now people pay Google to watch other people's hosted video content. It's funny how easily people can be brainwashed into giving companies money for nothing. I'm still waiting for the first company to start selling bottled air next!
You're talking as if video content has no intrinsic value of its own. Of course it does.
"Now people pay cable companies to watch TV shows. It's funny how easily people can be brainwashed into giving companies money for nothing."
I mean, when it launched the point of paying for cable instead of getting TV for free via broadcast was no ads
Now cable has ads and costs a fortune; I didn't know anyone who has it. I do still watch a little broadcast though, the price is right even if the programming isn't great.
If there's nothing on I turn it off and look at my phone
> point of paying for cable instead of getting TV for free via broadcast was no ads
No, the point of paying for cable was to get more TV. Most cable stations have always had ads. You're probably thinking of HBO, which is a tiny subset of overall cable output.
The original point of cable was Community Antenna TV, where you'd get a much better quality signal (and often even additional out-of-market but nearby channels). Then broadcasters decided to go into specifically seeking nationwide coverage (Ted Turner was a pioneer in this area). They also decided, due to the sports leagues, that cable should only deliver local stations in the same market as your location through blackouts (through my childhood I went from getting three ABC affiliates and two CBS affiliates, to one of each). It became unprofitable to manage blacking out the out-of-market station any time they were both running network or sports programming, so the out-of-market stations were generally removed (I also wouldn't be surprised if negotiations for retransmission consent included terms preventing carriage of out-of-market stations).
I don't think there was a time Cable didn't have ads, certain channels like HBO yeah, but never cable as a whole. The attraction was just having way more content.
In the 1950s when Cable started in the US, there were no Cable channels. Cable was literally renting a pipe to a big antenna instead of your own small antenna in your house, so you got broadcast with better signal strength.
The first Cable channel was HBO. The second was TBS, it had ads from the beginning.
There are tons of companies selling bottled air. Here's a story from 7 years ago. There are lots more now: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jan/21/fresh-air-for...
I get a lot of value from youtube - hours of entertainment. Also I don't pay and use an ad blocker which is maybe a bit unfair but thanks to the people who do pay.
Using an adblocker certainly won't help smaller creators and niche interests. If you don't want ads but want to support creators, pay for Premium.
A lot of them have sponsors which pay more than the ads, or are on Patreon, or are also on other platforms that pay them a higher proportion or allow videos that risk demonetisation on Youtube, or sell merch, or something else.
Sure, and if you're a patreon supporter, or support them on a non-YouTube platform, great. But if they're monetized and you're just watching them on YouTube, which probably 90% of people do, then running an adblocker is preventing them from earning money they would otherwise have earned. Whether or not they're _also_ earning money via other means is irrelevant.
I have a question. How much do small creators get for views from Premium users? Say they get a few thousand views per video, would they get anything from Premium users?
I've seen some breakdowns, and (depending on the content, because different ad segments can be more or less lucrative) view time from Premium users tends to be worth more, and often way more.
As I understand it, a chunk of your membership fee is divided amongst all monetized creators you watch on a monthly basis, proportional to your watch time. A different chunk of your membership fee is divided between the creators and record labels, for your watch/listen time of Shorts and Youtube Music.
So the size of the creator is only relevant insofar as it can determine whether the channel is eligible for monetization. View time is not worth a different amount depending on the size of the creator.
Probably not much for a few thousand. My understanding is that it requires continually producing videos that attract 100k+ viewers. It doesn't pay a lot, but it attracts direct sponsors who pay better. The biggest money comes from selling your own products and services, like "How to make millions on YouTube" seminars.
Lol, if you want to support them pay their patreon. The few cents they get from you paying premium won't support them.
I don't understand what point you're attempting to make. Yes, of course if you pay someone $5 a month on Patreon, they'll be getting more money from you than if you just used Premium or disabled your adblocker. And if you paid them $100/month, that would be more than $5. So?
Why does that make it okay to use an adblocker?
Because google already has enough money and the people I watch won't be getting any useful amount of money anyway, so why go through it?
I use patreon for ones I care about. And many of the niche interests I'm interested in are demonetized anyways which is the crux of the issue.
My YT premium recently expired for a payment issue and ffs the ads are absolutely insane.
The YouTube search has been unusable for me for about the last year or so (maybe longer?), since every ~5 results are interrupted with clickbait only barely related to my query (and then, past a certain point, they all become unrelated).
>YouTube is 20 years old now. Either the encrapification is very slow or they landed on a decent ad model.
Have you seen how many ads are in a video on YouTube? On desktop its no issue, but I use the YouTube app on my Apple TV now and then, and I tried to watch a few relatively short video, and I saw easily 4-6 ads per video, some of which were 90+ seconds long. Its awful
I feel like YouTube's enshittification is already here. The algorithm has long been terrible, they now punish users for disabling watch history, and the ads are more frequent, longer, and more annoying. If not for inertia (lots of video creators still uploading primarily or solely there), I'd have abandoned YouTube entirely a long time ago.
YouTubes content moderation guidelines / removal of videos that have any content just the slightest topic they don't want to see discussed is kind of a no-go why they don't get my money.
The advertising tier has gradually gotten worse on YouTube.
So websites move to the Spotify model of getting paid... that's gonna suck.
> …they landed on a decent ad model.
You must be joking. YT is so insufferable, I can only watch it via Firefox with uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger active. And even then only if and as long as I absolutely have to.
YouTube only still "works" because of the cat and mouse ad blocker game. I don't know how but my new ad blocker seems to fast forward through all the ads. For a little while YouTube had them licked and I was watching 10 to 20 second ads all the time so temporarily gave up on YouTube until the ad blockers caught up again. Now YouTube is still functionally broken on TVs and mobile phones but works fine on a desktop computer still.
Why not just pay for premium?
Not OP. I did pay, for 10y. But the video quality kept slowly degrading (lower bitrate). And ads in the video content kept increasing.
YouTube also increased advertising some paying shows, YouTube shorts, and more. No way to say no, only "yes forever" or "no thanks not right now". And it comes back in a few weeks.
It also constantly sneakily lowers the video quality.
So I stopped paying. I combine ad block and sponsor block and I forget another one to cleanup the UI.
Often I download the video so that I can actually seek around without buffering (because YouTube buffers as little as possible to save cost, which I can understand).
Content nowadays is 30min instead of 5min. So you better be ready to skip and seek.
YT premium has higher bit rates and sponsor block built in, but they don't call it that or advertise that it even exists. Instead they say it allows you to "skip commonly skipped segments of video" but basically it is sponsor block.
It's the bitrate we used to have before they made it a premium plus all star plus+ feature and downgraded the rest.
Netflix did the same. In fact they even silently downgraded us from 4k HDR surround sound during a software update. And nothing can get us back the max quality anymore. I stopped paying all together.
So you know what doesn't buffer, has the absolute best quality (like 4x the bitrate etc), all the languages and what not? pirated content.
It's just stupid how much easier it is to obtain predictable quality without stutter by downloading rather than actually paying a streamer service.
Plus the ads and other UX dark patterns are through the roof.
I’m amazed people can get rid of shorts for a few weeks. For me, I tell it I don’t want to see them and it’s literally back as soon as I refresh the feed. It’s aggressively anti-UX.
Pay for a global monopoly that has always subsided its operation with infinite money from a near ad and search monopoly and private equity? Yeah, I will keep my uBlock Origin active, no thanks.
Watching things without having to log in is my use case. Not something that Google would want to ever cater for, so ad blocking it is.
I spend noticeably less time on youtube than I used to because they keep shoving shorts in my face. I'm a premium subscriber, I click "fewer shorts," nothing changes. Maybe I should be thankful?
Turn off all the history options, and bookmark https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions , which shows you only what you're subscribed to, in reverse-chronological order. (It'll still show you shorts, but only those for channels you're subscribed to.)
I recently quit YT premium after decades of having it, and now I actually (weirdly) feel good when I see ads bc it's a reminder that I'm not giving Googletube 20$/month
I wouldn't use the word decades to describe a time span of less than 11 years at maximum, but you do you!
touché, I suppose it was "more than 3/4/5 years" and my sense of time is, unfortunately, warped
AI models will continue to improve, but open source models are, right now, good enough for plenty of tasks.
If I'm searching "how to get an intuitive understanding of dot product and cross product", any open source model right now will do a perfectly fine job. By the time that the ad-pocalypse reaches AI answers, the models I mention will be at the point of being able to be run locally using consumer hardware. Probably every phone will run one.
I suspect in the next decade we will see the business model of "make money via advertising while trying/pretending to provide knowledge" become well and truly dead.
> AI models will continue to improve…
[citation needed]
My intuitive sense—informed by media coverage, behaviors exhibited by AI companies and their investors, and a very foundational understanding of how it all works—is that AI models have largely hit a wall and have struggled to improve at all, in some very public cases the newer versions perform worse than their predecessors. The fact that most of the benchmarks are hardly more than internal tests designed to highlight very narrow performance metrics has made getting any reliable sense of the state of the art rather difficult. They do indeed have some extremely useful purposes, but I have yet to see anything that broadly justifies the expense of it all (in plain economic terms, but also in sociopolitical and environmental terms) and a lot of indications that they have recently reached some very firm limits.
I certainly agree that we're at diminishing returns but I suspect there are a lot of data sources left untapped; audio recordings, etc, that would improve the models. Or just some other math improvement.
But in a world where they do not improve, that actually just strengthens the point I made in the rest of my original comment :)
Google also killed the display ad market by monopolizing it with Adsense and then killed Adsense revenue sharing with creators to take all the money for themselves by turning their 10 blue links into 5 blue ads at the top of the search results.
Adsense is just for little hobby websites, no actual businesses use it. They all use header bidding, which is (mostly) not controlled by Google.
> Before header bidding, publishers sold ad space through a “waterfall” method, offering the space to one ad exchange at a time, typically prioritizing whichever had previously offered the highest prices. But Google made it so that its AdX got “first look” access through DFP by calling it to submit a real-time bid before other exchanges got the chance to take part in an auction. That meant AdX could buy up any inventory it wanted as long as it met the publisher’s floor price, then pass the less desirable space to other exchanges, according to the DOJ.
[...]
> But Google moved quickly to reestablish AdX’s power. It created a competitor to header bidding called “Open Bidding,” which let Google take an extra cut of revenue. And under the adoption of header bidding, Google’s AdX ultimately got a “last look” advantage when publishers chose to feed the winning header bid into their publisher ad server — which most often was Google’s DFP. That’s because AdX’s advertiser buyers would then have the option to bid as little as a penny more than the winning header bid to secure the most attractive ad space.[0]
Google's header bidding-related shenanigans were a big part of the antitrust case against them, and they were found to be "monopolizing open-web digital advertising markets"[1], so I wouldn't say that it is mostly not controlled by Google.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/24/24253293/google-ad-tech-a... [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-prevails-l...
I'm aware of that stuff. That's why I said "mostly". That stuff is bad, but only somewhat impedes the effectiveness of header bidding. There still is bidding going on, there still are many bids being won by companies besides Google, and there's only so much that Google can do about that even with these shenanigans. It's a far cry from all ads being sold directly through Google like on AdSense, where they can simply take a giant cut off the top and call it a day.
> YouTube is still young
I almost spit out my drink.
The open web that Google killed is 20 years older than YouTube.
Give it time.
I mean, compared to the music, TV, and film industries? YouTube is very young. Even many of today's media conglomerates have some sort of root that goes back 100 years or more.
Has there ever been an option to pay google $20/month for a better / add-free search?
The current subscription situation for LLM stuff actually makes me hopeful.
my kagi subscription is as valuable to me as my youtube premium sub.
There is no right to make money. Period.
If you did, that doesnt mean you should. If you can, that doesnt mean you should.
Basically, if we are smart Software as Public Infrastructure will take root and basic search and publication will be seen as ordinary government operations, like public parks and national forests.
It's the usual enshittification. First they screw the end luser, then they screw their actual customers. If you depend on one platform as a member of either of those groups, you're screwed.
There is filters links in unlock for these kind of things, they're called annoyances
For those who want to experience it: https://how-i-experience-web-today.com/
The only inaccurate thing of that meme page is that you only need to uncheck 5 cookie "partners", when in reality there should be at least a few hundred.
The web page source seems full of Easter eggs and I'm not sure how intentional that is. The generic labels and descriptions of content as "useless" make sense, but then I noticed things like multiple redundant </ul> tags and this script comment:
which is part of configuration for some minified/obfuscated driver....Anyway, is it really not even possible to set up things like NoScript and uBlock Origin on mobile?
Firefox for Android can handle uBlock Origin, probably NoScript as well. It's the one thing keeping me on Android at this point.
Are you saying on iOS there is no way to browse the Internet without an ad blocker? Maybe I should get an iPhone to stop spending time on my phone...
Can't answer that authoritatively since I don't know if there's something iOS-specific, but Firefox is the only browser on Android that lets you have uBlock Origin. And I know that Firefox on iOS doesn't.
I run desktop Firefox on my GNU/Linux phone, so I could leave Android behind.
Which phone are you using? How is your experience?
Librem 5 is my daily driver, buy I'll just give links to good, extensive reviews:
https://forums.puri.sm/t/nine-months-librem-5-as-my-only-pho...
https://forums.puri.sm/t/a-l5-review-1-week-to-my-ready-to-s...
> The web page source seems full of Easter eggs
Indeed... click the video play button :)
Unfortunately it only has ~3 domains running JS on it's example site.
I needs to have 15+ to really capture that modern web experience.
The site has a few other issues... The ads contrast with the content instead of blending in; there are only 2 ads inline with the content, and one is clearly an easy to ignore banner; all the cookie "partners" could be disabled, there should be 2 or 3 that you can't change.
Probably useless for mobile though, unless you can punch it in the omnibar with `javascript:` prefix
And you get a laundry list of several hundred switches that you have to manually switch off to deny their “legitimate interests”.
that was great, thanks for the laugh.
omg, this is a gem
You forgot the part about when you actually get to the content, there's usually about 5 paragraphs of SEO filler text before it actually gets onto answering the topic of the post.
You are lucky if they even answer.
Most of those are like:
These are the worst things ever
I have noticed that a lot. For example:
What is the price of the Switch 2?
The Switch 2 can be purchased with money. <Insert the Wikipedia article about currencies since the bronze age>
Recipe for Foo. Foo has always been my favorite dish. I fondly remember all the times my grandma made this for me. My grandma, who was born on August 2, 1946, as the daughter of… (10 more pages of text) To cook Foo the way my grandma did, you first need some Bar. Bar is originally native to the reclusive country of… (20 more pages of text)
You forgot 4 paragraphs text about how they went on a journey of self discovery, that lead to them spending time in the remote village of Y, learning the traditional methods of cooking the dish.
The dish in question is a ham sandwich.
Yeah recipes are the worst. I least the acknowledge themselves and give you a “jump to recipe” button most of the time. I sometimes hit the print button and just use the preview screen too.
I don’t think recipes are much at actual fault here. It seems the fault of search engines preferring returning recipes with longer stories over just-the-recipe blogs or sites like AllRecipes. We humans just have to suffer as a result of the artificial selection of what the search engines wants for us to experience.
It's not just that: recipes on their own are, AIUI, not copyrightable.
https://cookingforengineers.com is giving 500s for me. Per the Wayback machine it was working as recently as last month. They do include background stories but they're much better about this sort of thing. (The old-school aspects of the page layout also help.)
Paprika (an app for storing recipes) can parse out the ingredient list and directions from a webpage. It's surprisingly good at it.
thank you for this! i'll check it out
I don't even know if the recipes themselves are real and tested any more or just slop.
It seems like it's more often than not that I'm coming across dishes that just do not make sense, or are poorly plagiarized by someone who doesn't understand the cuisine they're trying to replicate with absolute nonsense steps or substitutions or quantities. I used to have a great success rate when googling for recipes but now it's almost all crap, not even a mixed bag.
Big Mama's Best Brownie Recipe.
Let's start at the beginning. I was born in 1956 in Chicago. My mother was a cruel drunk and the only thing my father hated more than his work was his family.
This might be a hot take but I'm usually fine with this... If its authentic which most of the time it isn't.
But I don't know, I feel like personal stories are what really makes a blog worth reading?
I don't like it when it's unnecessary "info dump" type. Like, "we all know the benefits of garlic (proceeds to list the well known benefits of garlic)". It's not personal or relevant.
I just want there to be a well formatted way of viewing the recipe at the bottom for quickly checking the recipe on a second or third visit.
Sure, but there's a time and a place, and when I'm looking for a recipe, especially if I'm landing on a site for the first time and don't even know who the author is yet, it's the time and place to do the shopping or the cooking, not for reading even an interesting origin story.
I discovered justtherecipe.com and never went back. So far it's free and ad-free, though I suspect that will end soon.
This is usually okay... what's not okay is that usually this narrative is broken up by ads, a constantly changing layout as you scroll, and eventually jumping so many times you can't resume scrolling, then eventually crashing because too many trackers/ads/etc overwhelmed the browser (on mobile).
No, it's not okay. I used google to look for a brownie recipe; I want a brownie recipe and nothing else.
Now that’s a recipe I would read. We can fold in the failing publishing industry and have authors presented by King Biscuit Flour.
And then the part where you have to create an account to read past the SEO filler :(
It's so sad, cause it drags down good pages. I recently did a lot of research for camping and outdoor gear, and of course I started the journey from Google. But a few sites kept popping up, I really liked their reviews and the quality of the items I got based on that, so I started just going directly to them for comparisons and reviews. This is how it's supposed to work, IMHO.
Outdoor Gear Lab is great, it’s true.
Nailed it :D
And that when the adverts refresh all the content on the page shifts and you lose track of what you have read.
or even worse, the page itself is just an AI summary of the topic
not to mention the mandatory cloudflare "are you human" pre-vetting page Im seeing on 15% of sites.
jesus wept.
And that I often have to wait for it to automatically get through it, which it does not, requiring me to click to verify I am indeed a human. Even if I am not even using Tor or VPNs.
Assuming that clicking to verify even works, which is shaky. On Safari, it seems to just loop me most of the time... which bums me out, since I generally don't have many issues with Safari.
Good news! Now they are often AI drivel too. So you can get an AI summary of more AI crap.
This is most of the results on the first page of Google search are AI slop.
Either that or fifty paragraphs of ai slop blathering in circles about the topic.
AI is following the drug dealer model. “The first dose is free!” Given the cost incurred, lots of dark patterns will be coming for sure.
AI is built by the same companies that built the last generation of hostile technology, and they're currently offering it at a loss. Once they have encrusted themselves in our everyday lives and killed the independent web for good, you can bet they will recoup on their investment.
That indeed is likely to come, but having experienced user hostile technology, the appropriate response is to prepare. Some trends suggest this is already happening ( though that only appears to be a part HN crowd so far ): moving more and more behind a local network. I know I am personally exploring local llm integration for some workflows to avoid the obvious low hanging fruit most providers will likely go for. But yes, the web in its current form might perish.
Would be cool if local libraries got together and figured out how to allow access to community LLMs. That fits more with my idea of the future and AIs than having the now dystopian tech companies running/defining it all.
Is there another edge to this sword? Can we fight back with LLMs that ignore sources with all the tracking / SEO and other garbage? I'd love to tell my local LLM that "I hate pintrest" for instance and it just goes "okay, pintrest shields are up".
Seconding the Kagi thing. You don't even need an LLM. If you search something like the term 'camping gear' search results pop up right away, no LLM response. However by each site's link is a little shield warning you about how many trackers and ads there will be on the page. Next to that is a lil kebob menu that lets you either boost the site or remove it from your search. That's also where their AI functionality is hidden. You can get a page summary or ask questions about that page.
If you'd rather the quick AI-summaries a la google you can put a question mark at the end of your search term. 'lawsuits regarding ferrets?'
And yeah as the sibling commenter pointed out, you can go into Kagi's preferences and explicitly rule out pinterest (or whatever site you want) from any of your searches for ever.
Kagi allows you to block Pinterest
Kagi got me to sign up as an early adopter because it let me banish pinterest forever.
It's a market where nobody has a particularly deep moat and most players are charging money for a service. Open weight models aren't too far behind proprietary models, particularly for mundane queries. The cost of inference is plummeting and it's already possible to run very good models at pennies per megatoken. I think it's unreasonably pessimistic to assume that dark patterns are an inevitability.
For the sake of argument, none of the typical websites with the patterns described have a moat, and the cost of hosting them has plummeted a while ago. It's not inevitable but it's likely, and they will be darker if they are embedded in the models' output...
You do realize of course that every service that now employs all these dark patterns we're complaining about was already profitable and making good money, and that simply isn't good enough? Revenue has to increase quarter-to-quarter otherwise your stock will tank.
It's not simply enough that a product "makes money" it must "make more money, every quarter, forever" which is why everything, not even limited to tech, but every product absolutely BLOWS. It's why every goddamn thing is a subscription now. It's why every fucking website on the internet wants an email and a password so they can have you activate an account, and sell a known active email to their ad partners.
I wish I could put 10 votes on this instead of just one. It just bothers me how success can be defined as something absurdly impossible like that.
We're already at a wild stage of the rot caused by the growth-forever disease: the most successful companies are so enormous that further profit increases would require either absurd monopoly status (Chase, Wells Fargo, B of A all merge!) or to find increasingly insane ways of extracting money (witness network TV: First they only got money from ads, then they started leeching additional money streams from cable providers, now most have added their own subscription service that they also want you to pay for, on top of watching ads.)
ISPs used to just charge a fee, now they also sell personal information about your browsing behavior for extra revenue, cap your bandwidth usage and charge for more, and one of them (comcast) owns a media conglomerate.
> and most players are charging money for a service
The aricle talks about AI overviews. As exemplified by the AI summary at the top of Google search results page. That thing is free.
1. Create free and good product
2. Attract large user base
3. Sell user data and attention to advertisers
4. Extract maximal profit from sponsors
5. Earn billions from shit product
Hey that's like a popular Search engine's search results page!
Yep. Dark patterns you can see are not that dark by comparison, we will need another word for coming dark patterns disguised in llm responses
We need to move LLMs into libraries. They are already our local repository of knowledge and make the most sense to be the hosts/arbiters of it. Not dystopian tech companies whose main profits come from dark patterns. I get AIs for companies being provided by businesses, but for the average person coming from libraries just make so much more sense and would be the natural continuation/extension if we had a healthy/sane society.
> Yep. Dark patterns you can see are not that dark by comparison, we will need another word for coming dark patterns disguised in llm responses
As someone else said, you can probably filter responses through a small purpose-built/trained LLM that strips away dark patterns.
If you start getting mostly empty responses as a result, then there was no value prior to the stripping anyway.
If you can't tell when a big expensive llm is subliminally grooming you to like/dislike something or is selective with information then another (probably small and cheaper) llm somehow can? Arms race?
> If you can't tell when a big expensive llm is subliminally grooming you to like/dislike something or is selective with information
this is already there and in prod but called AI "safety" (really corporate brand safety). The largest LLMs have already been shown to favor certain political parties based on the preferences of the group doing the training as well. Even technical people who should know better naively trust the response of an LLM well enough to allow to make API calls on their behalf. What would prevent an LLM provider to train their model to learn and manipulate an API to favor them or a "trusted partner" in some way? It's just like in the early days, "it's on the Internet, it has to be true".
> If you can't tell when a big expensive llm is subliminally grooming you to like/dislike something or is selective with information
I mean, I can tell when a page contains advertisements, but I still use an ad-blocker.
The point was not to help me detect when a response is ad-heavy, but to stop me seeing those ads at all.
> Arms race?
Possibly. Like with ad-blockers, this race can't be won by the ad-pusher LLM if the user uses the ad-blocker LLM.
The only reason ad-pusher websites still work is because users generally don't care enough to install the ad-blocker.
In much the same way, the only reason LLM ad-pushers will work is if users don't bother with an LLM ad-blocker.
> I mean, I can tell when a page contains advertisements, but I still use an ad-blocker
Yep, because why let people make money from their work right? You should just get content for free!
> this race can't be won by the ad-pusher LLM if the user uses the ad-blocker LLM.
As per my comment it literally can.
I fail to see how that will work out. Just I have an adblocker now, I could have a very simple local llm in my browser that modifies the search-AIs answer and strips obvious ads.
They won't be obvious. They'll be highly customized brain worms influencing your votes and purchases to the highest bidder.
Yep. Right now, even with cookies inferences about individual humans are minimal, but exposing your whole patterns in speech make you a ripe target for manipulation at a scale that some may not fully understand yet. 4o is very adept at cold reading and it is genuinely fascinating to read those from that perspective alone. Combine it with style evaluation and a form of rudimentary history analysis, and you end up with actual dossier on everyone using that service.
Right now, we are lucky, because it is the least altered version of it ( and we all know how many filters public models have to go through ).
Which sounds very illegal in most places, as clearly identifying sponsored content is required. Let's see how that turns out.
For hire drivers/having employees had very specific legal requirements in most areas. Let's see how that turned out. Oh yeah, the dystopian tech companies won and we the people got the benefit job/job rules being thrown out for the beauty that is independent contractor 'gig work'.
> as clearly identifying sponsored content is required
Citation needed?
Once AI content becomes monetized with ads, it's not going to look like the ads/banners we're used to. If you're looking into the past, you don't understand the potential of AI. Noam Chomsky's manufactured consent is going to look quaint by comparison.
To combat this, maybe we can cache AI responses for common prompts somehow and make some kind of website where people could search for keywords and find responses that might be related to what they want, so they don’t have to spend tokens on an AI. Could be free.
I would be curious to see what would happen if you could write every query/response from an LLM to an HTML file and then serve that directory of files back to google with a simple webserver for indexing.
I think the future will be:
1. Someone prompts 2. Server searches for equivalent prompts, if something similar was asked before, return that response from cache. 3. If prompt is unique enough, return response from LLM and cache new response. 4. If user decides response isn’t specific enough, ask LLM and cache.
Well maybe not. Thanks that we have Gemini now to compete with ChatGPT. Competition may avoid dark patterns. But without competition yes definitely
Competition or not, dark patterns or not - sooner or later LLMs will need to earn money for their corporations.
But they do? Paid subscriptions for Gemini, ChatGPT and Copilot are a thing.
If Google throws in a free AI summary in their search it only helps promoting Gemini in the long run.
Look up the numbers. OpenAI actually loses money on every paid subscription, and they’re burning through billions of dollars every year. Even if you convince a fraction of the users to pay for it, it’s still not a sustainable model.
Even if they were profitable, the investors would feel that it's not profitable enough. They won't stop at breaking even.
And even if it was the highest profit branch of the company, they still would see a need to do anything possible to further increase profits. That is often where enshittification sets in.
This currently is the sweet phase where growing and thus gaining attention and customers as well as locking in new established processes is dominant. Unless the technical AI development stays as fast as in the beginning, this is bound to change.
I actually wondered about this myself, so I asked Gemini with a long back and forth conversation.
The takeaway from Gemini is that subscriptions do lose money on some subscribers, but it is expected that not all subscribers use up their full quota each month. This is true even for non-AI subscriptions since the beginning of the subscription model (i.e. magazines, gamepass, etc).
The other surprising (to me, anyway) takeaway is that the AI providers have some margin on each token for PAYG users, and that VC money is not necessary for them to continue providing the service. The VC money is capital expenditure into infrastructure for training.
Make of it what you will, but it seems to me that if they stop training they don't need the investments anymore. Of course, that sacrifices future potential for profitability today, so who knows?
That’s just a general explainer of subscription models. As of right now VC money is necessary for just existing. And they can never stop training or researching. They also constantly have to buy new gpus unless there’s at some point a plateau of ‘good enough’
The race to continue training and researching, however, is drive by competition that will fall away if competitors also can't raise more money to subsidise it.
At that point the market may consolidate and progress slow, but not all providers will disappear - there are enough good models that can be hosted and served profitably indefinitely.
Seems like there can never be good enough models; the user will want it up-to-date models with respect to news and culture.
For some uses, sure. But for plenty of uses that can be provided in context, RAG, or via tool use, or doesn't matter.
Even for the uses where it does matter, unless providers get squeezed down to zero margin, it's not that new models will never happen, but that the speed at which they can afford to produce large new models will slow.
Why do you think Gemini is the authority on the internal costs of AI providers and their profit margins?
> Why do you think Gemini is the authority on the internal costs of AI providers and their profit margins?
Where did I say I think that?
That's the source you chose to use, according to you.
You don't mention cross-checking the info against other sources.
You have the "make of it what you will" at the end, in what appears to be an attempt to discard any responsibility you might have for the information. But you still chose to bring that information into the conversation. As if it had meaning. Or 'authority'.
If you weren't treating it as at least somewhat authoritative, what was the point of asking Gemini and posting the result?
Gemini's output plus some other data sources could be an interesting post. "Gemini said this but who knows?" is useless filler.
The mediocre AI summaries aren't promoting Gemini when you can't use them to start a chat on Gemini. They effectively ads and search results for no benefit.
The electric bill does not pay for itself.
What is also interesting is one of the biggest search companies is using it to steer traffic away from its former 'clients'. The very websites google talked into slathering their advertisements all over themselves. By giving them money and traffic. But that worked because google got a pretty good cut of that. But now only google gets the 'above the fold' cut.
That has two long term effects. One the place they harvest the data will go away. The second is their long term money will decrease. As traffic is lowered and less ads shown (unless google goes full plaster it everywhere like some sites).
AI is going to eat the very companies making it. Even if the answers are kind of 'meh'. People will be fine with 'close enough' for the majority of things.
Short term they will see their metric of 'main site retention' going up. It will however be at the cost of the websites that fed the machine.
Good point.
Looking ahead, Search will become a de facto LLM chatbot, if it isn't already.
> Competition may avoid dark patterns.
Oh bless your heart.
You don't even need to bring up corporate collusion, countless price gouging schemes, or the entire enshittification movement to understand that competition discovers the dark patterns. Dark patterns aren't something to be avoided, they're the natural evolution of ever-tighter competition.
When the eyeball is the product, you get more checks if you get more eyeballs. Dark patterns are how you chum the water to attract the most product.
I made this game inspired by all the dark patterns from darkpatterns.org - every pop up is based on a real dark pattern
https://www.termsandconditions.game/
Application error An error occurred in the application and your page could not be served. If you are the application owner, check your logs for details. You can do this from the Heroku CLI with the command heroku logs --tail
the darkest pattern of all!
Funny because it's true. Nothing in the GP's list of dark patterns irritate me more than a site that initially loads and nicely displays the content but then takes it all away and switches to the generic next.js "Application error" when you move the mouse or try to scroll. FFS!
I also get this. Firefox on Android in Germany.
Same for me! I'm also in the EU.
Same, Western Asia
I also get that.
Weird only some people getting an error. Works ok for me.
It’s on a very old Heroku hosting plan. I should probably update that one day.
Just for the record, I get the same result with Firefox or Chromium and with IPs in different EU countries.
LMK, reporting in as well: broken when trying multiple ways on my end and wanna play! Great idea!
Dead here in the UK too
me too. Are we all in the EU? (I am)
When you posted this, it would have been 1-3AM in North America (and probably large parts of South America), so yeah, probably mostly Europeans!
And the many keen HN readers down in South Africa! (also CET)
Haha, this is great, nice work
Oh this is good, I like it!
working now - ahaha nice!
>* If I am lucky, there is a "necessary only".*
I never use those. I suspect that in many cases if there are "legitimate interest" options¹ those will remain opted-in.
----
[1] which I read as "we see your preference not to be stalked online, but fuck you and your silly little preferences we want to anyway"
Recently, I've discovered Consent-O-Matic for Firefox [1], which rejects some cookie preferences. Not all of them, but it still helps here and there.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat...
They will because that's how things are supposed to work. For example your preference about tracking will get stored for that site. The same as login details. Those are legitimate interests and you never get an option for them.
most of them try to argue serving ads and tracking is `legitimate interest`, which you have to disable manually
> most of them
I'm also grumpy about lots of this, but most? Can you point at any data that support this?
"legitimate interest" is just weasel words. With some mental gymnastics, you can argue for anything to be legitimate. And you can continue to do so until someone steps up, challenges your claims in a court, and wins the case.
That is such a silly stupid thing in the GDPR consent.
- "Please don't track me."
- "But what if we realllly want to?"
A normal response to that would be an even more resounding FCK NO, but somehow the EU came to the completely opposite conclusion.
Claiming tracking cookies as "necessary" is often illegal under the GDPR. This is an enforcement problem, not a problem with the law itself, or the EU.
"Necessary" means "necessary for fulfilment of the contract". Your name and address are necessary data when you order off Amazon, your clickstream is not.
If the content is free, monetizing you is clearly necessary (/s, kinda)
Monetizing is fine with me: There’s nothing stopping creators from showing relevant ads—ones they choose themselves. Sometimes I have even found myself wishing there had been an ad a few months ago for a software conference I just realized I missed.
If someone blogs about woodworking, show static ads for tools they actually use and love. If they're into programming, show JetBrains, cloud providers, or anything dev-adjacent. Totally fine by me.
The problem is that almost everyone defaults to Google Ads—which then serves me wildly irrelevant junk, think brain-melting pay-to-win mobile games or even scammy dating sites that have zero connection to the content I’m reading and zero relevance to my interests.
It’s not just noise, it’s actively degrading the experience.
Ah I remember the good-old day when people were selling "ad spaces" on their sites that weren't obtrusive. And usually the ads were things the author approved of or even used
I miss the naive days of the million dollar homepage
Necessary means necessary to add it to the page for the project manager to collect their annual bonus.
Please show me where GDPR says this.
I think you'll find that GDPR says the opposite and the only reason this continues to happen is because authorities don't have enough resources to go after every at the same time and also because European authorities have a hard time against US companies.
Sure, here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
End of recital (47):
> The processing of personal data for direct marketing purposes may be regarded as carried out for a legitimate interest.
Have my upvote. I have just learned that targeted ads might be considered direct marketing. I always thought it was limited to things that had my name and address (physical, email or other) on it, excluding online ads unless they were part of a "logged in experience" like upsells inside the product I am currently using.
That said, I read the rest of the recital and I think it is rather clear to the degree that such things can be clear that if you didn't expect it, it isn't legal. Here are some quotes:
- "[...]provided that the interests or the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject are not overriding, taking into consideration the reasonable expectations of data subjects based on their relationship with the controller."
- "At any rate the existence of a legitimate interest would need careful assessment including whether a data subject can reasonably expect at the time and in the context of the collection of the personal data that processing for that purpose may take place."
I can assure you the even after reading this, if I have clicked "necessary only" (as this discussion started with) it is not my reasonable expectation that any data are stored except those that are strictly necessary for the navigation and the user visible features[1] of the site works.
I'll admit that it seems some people think there is an argument that can me made that online ads can be direct marketing, but I would not risk any of my savings to defend that claim in court and I don't think Facebook or Google want to help you either as they seem to trying their best to prevent people from targeting individuals or at least pretending they do. And if it does, it is still covered by the conditions above.
[1]: and yes, that means user features, so unless you are creating an online ad-collection of some kind, that probably does not mean ads
The only necessary cookies would be a session cookie for that domain which doesn't need a popup under the GDPR.
I always use the inspect tool to just remove the popup. Interacting with it could be considered consent.
Same as "Do Not Track'...
Your AI chat bot is ad free for now. This comment brought to you by PlavaLaguna Ultrasonic Water. Make your next VC pitch higher than you ever thought possible! Consume responsibly
At least there is more credible competition, so there could be a variety of business models to pick - ad-backed or paid. The search engine wars truly ended up being winner-take-all.
There was virtually unlimited competition on the web
You forgot the popup requesting access to send you background notifications.
> This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me
And to find that out you have to hit Page Down about twenty times, scanning as you, because the content is padded out to increase ad coverage.
That's because AI is still in the honeymoon phase, unless it's a paying service, at some point the summary will start to have context relevant ads.
Also, I felt like in long term that's going to kill off the good faith of all those smaller sites that are actually good, while the bigger ones still produce subpar contents.
> If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.
ad-free? For now. That's just a matter of time.
I don't know which models they use but it's likely already happening.
Yesterday's SEO battles are today battles to convince LLMs to produce ad tokens. The corpus is already ridden of such content. And LLM make it even easier to produce more such spam.
> "This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me (often it is not)."
This is the huge one for me. If you search for something in natural language, the results you get on any search engine completely suck - yet ironically the AI overview is generally spot on. Search engines have been stuck in ~2003 for decades. Now the next 'breakthrough' is to use their LLMs to actually link to relevant content instead of using pagerank+ or whatever dysfunctional SEO'd algorithm they're still using.
> Page loads, immediately when I start scrolling and reading a popup trying to get tracking consent
It was with the best of intentions but cookie banners have done more to hurt web browsing than anything else in the last decade
The banner is not the problem, the predatory tracking by webpages are. You can make a webpage without it no problem, my home page does not have it.
To add onto it the do-not-track header can be used to signal an opt out. There needs to be a browser wide setting that is communicated to websites without user interaction. Some German court even ruled that Linkdin IIRC has to respect DNT for that.
The banners themselves are ugly and can fill almost half the screen
Even website makers who don't use predatory tracking end up including them as a CYA tactic
Yes, but is your webpage profitable?
The law is good, but websites implement it badly on purpose to inflict consumer ire towards the EU. There's good money to be made if they manage to make the voting public hate the cookie banners so much the anti-tracking legislation gets repelled
What you describe is subtly different from what is in the article.
The article is about Google (and other traditional search engines) snatching away clicks from web site owners. What you describe is AI tools (for lack of a better word[1]) snatching away traffic from the ruling gatekeepers of the web.
I think the latter is a much bigger shift and might well be the end of Google.
By extension it will be the end of SEO as we know it. A lot of discussion currently (especially on HN) is about how to keep the bad crawlers out and in general hide from the oh so bad AI guys. That is not unlike the early days of search engines.
I predict we will soon see a phase where this switches by 180° and everyone will see a fight to be the first one to be accessed to get an opportunity to gaslight the agent into their view of the world. A new three letter acronym will be coined, like AIO or something and we will see a shift from textual content to assets the AI tools can only link to.
Maybe this has already happened to some degree.
[1] Where would I put the boundary? Is Kagi the former or the latter? I'd say if a tool does a non-predetermined number of independent activities (like searches) on its own and only stops if some criteria are fulfilled it is clearly in the latter category.
> everyone will see a fight to be the first one to be accessed to get an opportunity to gaslight the agent into their view of the world
In this model, only monetizable content will be generated though.
As much as we abhor what advertising has done to the web, at least it’s independent of content: pair quality content with ads, make money.
In the brave new AI search world, only content which itself is directly monetizable will be created. E.g. astroturf ads
> pair quality content with ads, make money
Huh, the exact opposite happened. Create as much filler content as possible, optimized for SEO, generate thousands of variants to capture search traffic, cover as much of the screen as possible with ads, use tricks to increase page view count, and then make money.
Publishers of quality content have moved to subscriptions, which is a different kind of trouble.
> only content which itself is directly monetizable will be created
We have already been here for a while and it can hardly get any worse.
> it can hardly get any worse
I’ll take that bet.
> In the brave new AI search world, only content which itself is directly monetizable will be created
Or content that is not meant to make money (e.g. opinion pieces arguing for a cause), or is very specific to products that make money (e.g. documentation, manuals), or is funded by governments or non-profits for the public good.
You're spot on. That shift you're describing isn't a prediction anymore, it's already happening.
The term you're looking for is GEO (Generative Engine Optimization), though your "AIO" is also used. It's the new frontier.
And you've nailed the 180° turn: the game is no longer about blocking crawlers but about a race to become their primary source. The goal is to be the one to "gaslight the agent" into adopting your view of the world. This is achieved not through old SEO tricks, but by creating highly structured, authoritative content that is easy for an LLM to cite.
Your point about shifting to "assets the AI tools can only link to" is the other key piece. As AI summarization becomes the norm, the value is in creating things that can't be summarized away: proprietary data, interactive tools, and unique video content. The goal is to become the necessary destination that the AI must point to.
The end of SEO as we know it is here. The fight for visibility has just moved up a layer of abstraction.
> I predict we will soon see a phase where this switches by 180° and everyone will see a fight to be the first one to be accessed to get an opportunity to gaslight the agent into their view of the world. A new three letter acronym will be coined, like AIO or something and we will see a shift from textual content to assets the AI tools can only link to.
i can definitely see LLMs companies offering content creators a bump in training priority for a fee. It will be like ad-sales but you're paying for the LLM to consider your content at a higher priority than your competition.
also gotta have every click on the page to highlight text navigate to a shopping cart subscription page and then break the back button.
Clicking on a video to mute it also needs to navigate to a sponsor’s page and break the back button. And then the page reloads which doubles the page view count. Genius web dev decision. I bet they said “there’s literally no downsides to doing this!”
Also, the ads need to autoplay on full volume, often bypassing my system volume somehow so they can play even though the rest of the audio is on mute and none of the mute functionality works. Surely the user simply forgot they had mute on so we should just go ahead and fix that.
They also need to play on 4K ultra HD to use my entire monthly cell plan if I don’t stop it in the first 3 seconds, which I can’t do because the video has to fully load before I’m able to interact with it to click stop. Or clicking stop pauses it and then automatically restarts playing the video.
These webdev chrome devs need to stop adding new random features and start fixing the basic functionality. I don’t want fading rotating banners that save 3 lines of CSS. I want the “DO NOT AUTOPLAY. EVER.” Button to actually work.
I use Firefox with standard security options and the uBlock Origin Add-On on my Android phone and I virtually never see what you describe, bar the tracking consent nag screen ofc. Maybe we visit vastly different web content?
I guess if my experience was as much degraded as yours I wouldn't bother with the web anymore, so yay for AI summarizers, at least for the time being. And don't get me wrong, a summarizer is a workaround, not a solution.
There is an extension called "I still don't care about cookies" that mostly solves the nag screens (There's also a similar one that doesn't have the "still" in its name but that one was bought by an ad company and enshittified.) AFAIU it usually accepts the cookies though, so you should combine it with something that clears your cookies periodically.
Sometimes it breaks the site so that you can't scroll or something, but that's quite rare. And most of the time it's solved by a refresh. Very infrequently you need to whitelist the site and then deal with the nag screen manually. A bit annoying, but way better than rawdogging it.
Works on desktop & mobile.
No need to use a specific extension, uBlock Origin is all you need. Just enable the "Easy List/uBO - Cookie Notices" filter from the filters list (the default is off).
You can also add this filter to uBO: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/
Sweet, didn't know that. I'm gonna try if it works with less breakage. Thanks!
I'm going to try that, thank you!
I make the point of leaving right away, I hope some metric somewhere is showing them or that it screws with their SEO...
I might come back later though.
That's why I don't use mobile for browsing. Only Firefox with JS disabled unless it's needed and I need that page.
Firefox with ublock origin does wonder on mobile
Literally this other link from a first page of HN: https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pix...
On desktop I have one of those one-click JS toggle extensions, so the moment I see any attempts to interfere with me reading the goddamn article, that website gets its privilege of client-side interactivity revoked due to abuse.
Some annoyed me so much I even disabled JS for them on my phone. I do that more rarely because of how unnecessarily convoluted that setting is in Chromium browsers on Android. You have to navigate 4 levels deep in the settings and enter the domain you want to block into a text field!
For example, I have JS disabled on everything Substack (and it really annoys me when I end up on Substack hosted on a custom domain).
Ugh this just makes me wonder how long it will be before we start seeing responses to AI chat like "please watch this 30s ad / drink a verification can to get your answer". I have to believe that ads are coming.
I have been leaning more and more on Marginalia Search to avoid the type of webpages you are describing. The filters centered on page technologies seem to weed out much that is wrong with the modern style-over-substance web, IMHO.
I'm actually rolling out changes as we speak that should make nuisance identification even better, and will result in throwing out fewer babies with the bathwater.
https://marginalia-search.com/site/www.fontstruct.com?view=t...
https://marginalia-search.com/search?query=special%3Apopover...
I’ve actually been working on a tool that uses jina.ai’s “reader” api to let you see a rendered markdown view of a pages contents. Check it out at https://leidnedya.github.io/markweb or try it out with https://leidnedya.github.io/markweb#example.com
On iOS Safari, ”Hide distracting items” allows you to bypass the consent dialogs about 95% of the time without consenting to anything.
Pretty accurate, the web is generally unpleasant at the moment especially using a search engine as your entry point. The first page of results are irrelevant paid ads.
My web experience has been reduced to a handful of bookmarks, X, and chatgpt or grok. Occasionally I’ll go looking for government sites to validate something I read on X. Everything else is noise
On a smaller phone I often can't even see the button and it won't let me zoom out/scroll to get to it
There were solutions like Google Web Lite, AMP HTML or Facebook Instant Articles, but sadly they are mostly gone. There is still reader mode in some web browsers (e.g. Speedreader in Brave) which helps a lot. And of course uBlock Origin (Lite) is a must.
I know it won't fix the core issue, but you can try (at least on android) Firefox with uBlock Origin (with filter lists for cookies and annoyances enabled). It makes the web usable on mobile for me.
> If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.
Now. Nothing stopping them from injecting ads in their summary. And chances are that they will eventually
If nobody writes "content" any more, there will be nothing to summarize. Google is stealing the clicks from real websites that try to make a living.
This is naturally not addressed in the US "AI" Action Plan, same as copyright theft.
My big hope is that somehow magically we avoid bringing this experience back to AI summaries and chats. Realistically, though, I will be on the lookout for the next generation of uBlock, NextDNS and the like.
Also people are just lazy and will choose the path of least resistance. I'll bet that Wikipedia and other websites are affected and don't fit in that list of legitimate grievances.
NoScript removes almost all of that, at the insignificant cost of sometimes having to add some (usually temporary) exceptions to run scripts from a few domains.
Clay tablets and library books have no ads either. NoScript is not the solution to the web being full of AI-generated SEO crap. It’s a bandaid over the real problem.
You don't have NoScript or AdBlock on any default browser on any relevant mobile platform.
You have adblock on firefox mobile or in browsers like Cromite (fork of Bromite, based on Chromium).
For now. Some LLM responses will contain advertising eventually too. Google’s search revenue is plummeting. They have to make it up somewhere.
> you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.
for now! and we should enjoy it while it lasts. Ad-driven AIs are coming, it is inevitable.
Don't forget the drop in device performance/battery from the ridiculously spammy analytics scripts they force on you.
All because "content" isn't free to produce.
AI stole all the content from those websites, starving them from ad revenue.
The Google overview is made by the same company that puts those ads in those websites in first place.
What is coming next is that there will be ads in the overview and you will have no choice but to read it because all its cited links will be rotten.
Set up your browser to open all websites in reader view and all these problems are solved.
Oh, don't worry, they'll be monetizing this as soon as you're hooked. Google will show you the AI content... after you've seen this ad.
Those data centers don't pay for themselves, you know.
And don’t try to exit or you’ll get another pop up “why are you leaving? Please don’t go”
Sometimes they hack the back navigation function and present their own clone of Google Discover feed. If you are not careful you might end up in a different feed.
Or sending you back to their home page...
Anyone know the largest site that does this reliably? I've seen e.g. Meta's FB mess with the back button but not the cloning grift.
I mean you're not wrong try searching for any recipe or just a search result where you want a simple answer. This problem you're outlining isn't just the search engines/ai/results fault. Simple questions should have answers in paragraphs of dialogue and anymore than 1 ad.
You forgot that after you've run the gauntlet of popups, you have a 50% chance of getting a hard paywall.
I send the link to another browser, one with JavaScript disabled
My "favorite" Google dark-pattern, for which the dreamy kid in me hopes they get fucking sued to oblivion for how offensive it is[1]:
1. Open safari
2. Type something so that it goes search google
3. A web results page appears
4. Immediately a popup appears with two buttons:
- They have the same size
- One is highlighted in blue and it says CONTINUE
- The other is faint and reads "Stay in browser" (but in my native language the distinction is even less clear)
5. Clicking CONTINUE means "CONTINUE in the app", so it takes me to the Google App (or, actually, to the app store, because I don't have this app), but this does not end there!
6. If I go back to the browser to try to fucking use google on my fucking browser, as I fucking wanted to, I realize that doing "Back" now constantly moves me to the app (or app store). So, in effect, I can never get the search results once I have clicked continue. The back button has been highjacked (long pressing does not help). My only option is to NEVER click continue
7. Bonus: All of this happens regardless of my iPhone having the google app installed or not
So: Big button that says "CONTINUE" does not "CONTINUE" this action (it, of course, "CONTINUES" outside).
I just want to FUCKING BROWSE THE WEB. If I use the google app, then clicking a link presumably either keeps me in its specific view of the web (outside of my browser), or it takes me out of the app. This is not the experience I want. I have a BROWSER for a reason (e.g. shared groups/tabs...)
Oh! And since this happens even if I don't have the app, it takes me to the app store. If I install the app via the app store, it then DOES NOT have any mechanism to actually "Continue". It's a fresh install. And, of course, if I go back to the browser and hit "back", I can't.
So for users who DO NOT HAVE THE APP, this will NEVER LET THEM CONTINUE. It will PREVENT THEM FROM USING GOOGLE. And it will force them to do their query AGAIN.
Did the people who work on this feature simply give up? What. The. Fuck?
This behavior seems to happen on-and-off, as if google is gaslighting me. Sometimes it happens every time I open Safari. Some other times it goes for days without appearing. Sometimes in anonymous tabs, sometimes not. Logged in or not, I've seen both scenarios.
I can't be sure, but I genuinely believe that the order of the buttons has been swapped, messing with my muscle memory.
Basically it's this image: https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/1m76elp/how_do_i_st...
Except a still image cannot describe the excruciating process of dealing with it — especially realizing "oh, wait, I clicked the wrong button, oh wait, no no no, get out of the app store, oh oh oh what did I type again? Damn I lost it all!..."
[1]I would quit before implementing this feature. It disgusts me, and we're talking about google, not some run-of-the-mill company whom you have to work for to barely survive. This is absolutely shameful.
I've written high-quality technical how-tos for many years, starting with PC World magazine articles (supported by ads), a book that helped people learn Ruby on Rails (sales via Amazon), and more recently a website that's good for queries like "uninstall Homebrew" or "xcode command line tools" (sponsored by a carefully chosen advertiser). With both a (small) financial incentive and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work that people appreciate, I know I've helped a LOT of people over four decades.
A year ago my ad-supported website had 100,000 monthly active users. Now, like the article says, traffic is down 40% thanks to Google AI Overview zero clicks. There's loss of revenue, yes, but apart from that, I'm wondering how people can find my work, if I produce more? They seldom click through on the "source" attributes, if any.
I wonder, am I standing at the gates of hell in a line that includes Tower Records and Blockbuster? Arguably because I'm among those that built this dystopia with ever-so-helpful technical content.
> am I standing at the gates of hell in a line that includes Tower Records and Blockbuster?
Maybe, but there’s a big difference - Netflix doesn’t rely on Blockbuster, and Spotify doesn’t need Tower Records. Google AI results do need your articles, and it returns the content of them to your readers without sending you the traffic. And Google is just trying to fend off ChatGPT and Meta and others, who absolutely will, if allowed, try to use their AI to become the new search gateways and supplant Google entirely.
This race will continue as long as Google & OpenAI & everyone else gets to train on your articles without paying anything for them. Hopefully in the future, AI training will either be fully curated and trained on material that’s legal to use, or it will license and pay for the material they want that’s not otherwise free. TBH I’m surprised the copyright backlash hasn’t been much, much bigger. Ideally the lost traffic you’re seeing is back-filled with licensing income.
I guess you can rest a little easier since we got to where we are now not primarily because of technical means but mostly by allowing mass copyright violation. And maybe it helps a little to know that most content-producing jobs in the world are in the same boat you are, including the programmers in your target audience. That’s cold comfort, but OTOH the problem you (we) face is far more likely to be addressed and fixed than if it was only a few people affected.
We are heading for an internet Kessler syndrome, where the destruction of human-written text will cause LLMs to train off of dirty LLM-written text, causing the further destruction of human-written text and the further degradation of LLM-written text. Eventually LLMs will be useless and human-written text will not be discoverable. I pray that the answer is that people seek out spaces which are not monetized (such as the gemini protocol) so that there's no economic incentive to waste computing resources on it.
> TBH I’m surprised the copyright backlash hasn’t been much, much bigger.
Even when you have them dead to rights (like with the Whisper hallucinations) the legal argument is hard to make. Besides, the defendants have unfathomable resources.
The recent taking of people's content for AI training might be the most blatant example of rich well connected people having different rules in our society that I've ever witnessed. If a random person copied mass amounts of IP and resold it in a different product with zero attribution or compensation, and that product directly undercut the business of those same IP producers, they would be thrown in jail. Normal people get treated as criminals for seeding a few movies, but the Sam Altmans of the world can break those laws on an unprecedented scale with no repercussions.
As sad as it is, I think we're looking at the end of the open internet as we've known it. This is massive tragedy of the commons situation and there seems to be roughly zero political will to enact needed regulations to keep things fair and sustainable. The costs of this trend are massive, but they are spread out across many millions of disparate producers and consumers, while the gains are extremely concentrated in the hands of the few; and those few have good lobbyists.
The trouble is what the LLMs do is effectively read a lot of articles and then produce a summary. What human writers do is quite similar - read a lot of stuff and then write their own article. It's quite hard to block what people have usually done because it's done by an LLM rather than a human. I mean even if you want to ban LLMs, if an article goes up how can you tell if it's 100% written by a human or the human used an LLM?
Sometimes, things that are fine become problems when done at scale.
Fishing, for example, is not terrible when it's you and your dad with a rod and bait. But we have the technology to create ships that dredge the ocean and exterminate all life. The scale is the problem.
To borrow a phrase, quantity has a quality all its own.
That's true but the GP comment was making a qualitative argument rather than a quantitative one.
'write their own article' is using existing stuff and adding your own spin and flavor to it, thus creating something new. An LLM summary is lifefless summary and the moment we remove new human articles for LLM to summarize whats left is LLM summarizing other LLMs and then?
If the AI summary was being posted as an article that sat and competed side-by-side with the content you wrote that might be one thing. What Google are doing is more like putting their article at the top of every search and yours and everybody else’s on the second page out of sight.
I agree whole heartedly. It seems clear to me that art and knowledge will transition to more private and/or undocumented experiences in the coming years in order to preserve their value.
I mean, there's always been a grey area even when it came to tiny snippets in the results, though those actually encouraged you to click through when you found the right result.
The beginning of the end was including Wikipedia entries directly in the search results, although arguably even some of the image results are high quality enough to warrant skipping visiting the actual website (if you were lucky enough to get the image at the target site in the first place) So maybe it goes back sooner than that.
Sorry to hear that -- thats sounds painful.
It does speak to one of the core problems with AI is the one time productivity boost from using all historical data created by humans is no longer going to be as useful going forward since individual contributors will no longer build and provide that information unless the incentive models change.
Most of your monthly active users don't want to read your articles. They want to get their questions answered with as little effort as possible. This is what Google's Overview is doing: it's transforming your articles into a form-factor that the users want. This is what you could be doing as well: rather than creating food for AI, create a mini-AI yourself that answers user questions. It doesn't have to fabricate answers, rather it can quote your memos in a format tailored to users, while your memos will remain private. This will also stonewall Google's AI, for now it would have to interrogate your mini-AI.
Unfortunately for you this kind of content does seem to be going the way of Blockbuster. But the writing was on the wall for years now with how much Google Search became useless due to over-SEOification of every website, LLMs were just the dagger
The pattern repeats itself. Come, use our services, it's free, it will be good for you. Users elevate the service to a monopoly. And then the behemoth thinks that the users - who gave their blood so the behemoth could grow - are now more like a nuisance and kills those that are the most vulnerable.
Every year they put the threshold higher and it results in more and more people getting burned. Of course the big, established brands are protected.
So they don't want the average joe's opinion. And they don't want to funnel money to you, now that you have fulfilled your purpose.
What you describe is more like the traditional VC structure for most businesses. Provide low cost services while they need to grow user base -- as user base is established the model now needs to extract value from the users - quality drops and the costs increases.
It happens for all VC based products since the drive on returns of invested capital is so high.
Put another way -- early stage products that every uses and love (in most not all cases) should not be assumed to be the end product.
What do I care what it's called. It's EVIL.
Novel content will continue to require human creators. So, if you are at the frontier of some idea space, whether that’s using Homebrew or baking brownies, your input will be rewarded to some extent. But, we won’t need 1000 different Medium blogs about installing Rails or 1000 baking websites pitching the same recipe but with a different family story at the top.
Yes, maybe a small amount of people ultimately contributing but if their input is truly novel and “true” then what’s the downside?
It will just be different. No profit train lasts forever. Google is about to be made utterly irrelevant after 20+ years or so as a company. And they were the best.
If you still have a connection to your readers (e.g. email) you can still reach them. If they've formed a community, even better. If not, its a good time to work on that.
Google doesn't really have that. I have zero sense of community with Google. And that's why they'll die if something doesn't change.
> and more recently a website that's good for queries like "uninstall Homebrew" or "xcode command line tools" (sponsored by a carefully chosen advertiser). With both a (small) financial incentive and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work that people appreciate, I know I've helped a LOT of people over four decades.
Simple content that can be conveyed in a few succinct lines of text (like how to uninstall Homebrew) is actually one of the great use cases for AI summaries.
I’m sorry that it’s losing you revenue, but I’d much rather get a quick answer from AI than have to roll the dice on an ad-supported search result where I have to parse the layout, dodge the ads, and extract the relevant info from the filler content and verbiage
I mean, then what happens when there isn't enough money in producing answers but technology continues to move forward? There isn't any more content for the AI to summarize to answer with...
Then we all start buying O'Reilly books again i guess, i use to have dozens.
Just a question how content is produced & ingested.
Utopian fantasy: interact with the ai - novel findings are registered as such and "saved" and made available to others.
Creative ideas are registered as such, if possible, theyre tested in "side quests" ie the ai asks - do you have 5min to try this? You unblock yourself if it works & see in the future how many others profited as well (3k people read this finding).
Its all a logistics question
Netflix didn't steal from Blockbuster mailing you their pirated DVDs.
You never should have made any money to begin with... That's the reality. The entire ad floated universe is a farce in time and space.
A lot of the comments here are along the lines of "websites are often hostile, and AI summaries are a better user experience" which I agree with for most cases. I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.
If I create content like recipes, journalism etc, previously I had exclusive rights to my created content and could monetise it however I wanted. This has mostly led to what we have today, some high quality content, lots of low quality content, mostly monetised through user hostile ads.
Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules. I still can't do that, but Google can if it's done through the mechanism of AI summaries.
I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators. The best one is that we find some alternative, third way, for creators to monotise content while maintaining discoverability.
I'm not sure what will happen, and I'm not denying the usefulness of AI summaries, but it feels easy to miss that, at their core, they're a fundamental reworking of the current economics of the internet.
> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.
This would be lovely.
> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators.
More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!
>More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads.
Why would you do that if you thought it was going to be hoovered up by some giant corporation and spat out again for $20 a month with no attribution.
"Writing is its own reward"
― Henry Miller (1964). “Henry Miller on Writing”, New Directions Publishing
"… and now its Sam Altman’s reward too!"
― Jayden Milne (2025). https://jayd.ml/about/
I think both are true.
From my post:
[B]ecause they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads.
Because they like to make stuff more than they value a subscription. I'm gonna write music no matter what happens to it.
I understand that, I’m in the middle of a project right now that has no commercial value to me. What I’m not going to do is offer it up to Google et al so they can profit from it.
> What I’m not going to do is offer it up to Google et al so they can profit from it.
What are you going to do with it? If you publish it, the law currently allows Google to hoover it up and there's nothing you can do about it.
Why publish? If people aren't going to click into it anyway and read it, why not just do it and write it up for yourself? I've been doing this for years (in a way, haven't quite worked writing it up into that) but I explore on my own constantly and try things just with me and my fiance. I still hope to share it someday but this person is right. You don't _have_ to do anything with it once you've done it. You can just work on a project and enjoy the process and then do nothing.
In that instance, google loses value over time because less and less valuable content is published because there's no point because people may read it as an AI summary but probably aren't going to share their own findings or discuss with you anyway.
It's so easy to say that when your income is not dependable on writing music.
And Google would still use AI to get money by using that content without having to access your website. Besides that, creating content IS work for a lot of people. Ads and affiliated links are part of the monetization model that works the best, sadly. What you are saying is "people should just code for fun and curiosity, their income should come from elsewhere" while Google is making money with Gemini. It's not necessarily wrong, but it sounds dismissive.
> This would be lovely.
I agree the current model sucks, but I think it being replaced is only good if it's replaced with something better.
> More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter
I'd love the idea of people doing things because they're passionate, but I feel a little unsure about people doing things because they're passionate, generating money from those things, but all that money going to AI summariser companies. I think there's some pretty serious limits too, journalists risk their safety a lot of the time, and I can't see a world where that happens purely out of "passion" without any renumeration. Aside from anything else, some acts of journalism like overseas reporting etc, isn't compatible with working a seperate "for-pay" job.
I hope things turn out the way you suggest. If we could return to a pre-2000s, pre-Dotcom boom internet I would be ever so happy, but I'm skeptical.
It's not going to happen this way, because these days for you to get somewhere near the top of Google results requires you to be an established content publisher, basically anyone with enough followers.
Someone who publishes content because they love the subject matter would only reach enough of an audience to have an impact if they work on it, a lot, and most people wouldn't do that without some expectation of return on investment, so they'd follow the influencer / commercial publication playbook and end up in the same place as the established players in the space are already.
If you're satisfied of being on the 50th page on the Google results, then that's fine. Nobody will find you though.
Being passionate about hats is one thing, but being passionate about sharing something you care about with others is the real driver for publishing. As LLMs degrade web discoverability through search (summaries+slop results), there's no incentive for the latter people to continue publishing on the open web or even the bot-infested closed gardens.
The web is on a trajectory where a local dyi zine will reach as many readers as an open website. It might even be cheaper than paying for a domain+hosting once that industry contracts and hosting plans aren't robust enough to keep up with requests from vibe-coded scrapers.
> More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!
I disagree with that. There are still people out there doing that out of passion, that hasn't changed (it's just harder to find). Bad actors who are only out there for the money will continue trying to get the money. Blogs might not be relevant anymore, but social media influencing is still going to be a thing. SEO will continue to exist, but now it's targeted to influence AIs instead of the position in Google search results. AIs will need to become (more) profitable, which means they will include advertising at some point. Instead of companies paying Google to place their products in the search or influencers through affiliate links, they will just pay AI companies to place their products in AI results or influencers to create fake reviews trying to influence the AI bots. A SEO slop article is at least easy to detect, recommendations from AIs are much harder to verify.
Also it's going to hit journalism. Not everyone can just blog because they are passionate about something. Any content produced by professionals is either going to be paywalled even more or they need to find different sources of income threatening journalistic integrity. And that gives even more ways to bad actors with money to publish news in their interest for free and gaining more influence on the public debate.
It's crazy how few people see it that way. Big tech is capturing all the value created by content creators, and it's slowly strangling the independent web it feeds on. It's a parasitic relationship. Once the parasite has killed its host, it will feed on its users.
>If I create content like recipes ... previously I had exclusive rights to my created content
Recipes are not protected by copyright law. That's _why_ recipe bloggers have resorted to editorialising recipes, because the editorial content is copyrightable.
Haha, you've exposed that I know absolutely nothing about copyright law! That's a great point, but I think my original point still stands if you swap out my full-of-holes example for a type of content that is copyrightable.
> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether
Quite clearly heading in that direction, but with a twist: the only people left will be advertising or propaganda, if there's no money in authenticity or correctness.
There was little to no money in authenticity or correctness in the heyday of home pages and personal blogs. People published because they were excited about sharing information and opinions. That was arguably the internet at its best.
> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.
And this is the reason why Google took its sweet time to counter OpenAI's GPT3. They _had_ to come up with this, which admittedly disrupts the publishers business model but at least if Google is successful they will keep their moat as the first step in any sales funnel.
> Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules
This is not true, you absolutely could have republished a recipe with your own wording and user experience.
At some stage Google will need to be accountable for answers they are hosting on their own site. The argument of "we're only indexing info on other sites" changes when you are building a tool to generate content and hosting that content on your own domain.
I'm guilty of not clicking when I'm satisfied with the AI answer. I know it can be wrong. I've seen it be wrong multiple times. But it's right at the top and tells me what I suspected when I did the search. The way they position the AI overview is right in your face.
I would prefer the "AI overview" to be replaced with something that helps me better search rather than giving me the answer directly.
>But it's right at the top and tells me what I suspected when I did the search. The way they position the AI overview is right in your face.
Which also introduces the insidious possibility that AI summaries will be designed to confirm biases. People already use AI chat logs to prove stuff, which is insane, but it works on some folks.
> Google will need to be accountable
Hell will freeze over first
Another problem is that you have to click twice:
1. The anchor icon.
2. Then one of the sites that appear on the right (on desktop).
> The argument of "we're only indexing info on other sites" changes when you are building a tool to generate content and hosting that content on your own domain.
And yet, "the algorithm" has always been their first defense whenever they got a complaint or lawsuit about search results; I suspect that when (not if) they get sued over this, they will do the same. Treating their algorithms and systems as a mysterious, somewhat magic black box.
I subscribe to Kagi. It's been worth it to have no ads and the ability to uprank/downrank sites.
And there's no AI garbage sitting in the top of the engine.
You can opt-in to get an LLM response by phrasing your queries as a question.
Searching for “who is Roger rabbit” gives me Wikipedia, IMDb and film site as results.
Searching for “who is Roger rabbit?” gives me a “quick answer” LLM-generated response: “Roger Rabbit is a fictional animated anthropomorphic rabbit who first appeared in Gary K. Wolf's 1981 novel…” followed by a different set of results. It seems the results are influenced by the sources/references the LLM generated.
You don’t have to phrase it as a question; just append a ?, which is an operator telling it you want a generated answer.
Yes. That is exactly what my answer demonstrates.
Your answer is helpful, but "phrasing your queries as a question" might reasonably be interpreted as implying a full natural language question is required to trigger the LLM response -- especially since your example is a full sentence.
I'm trying to expand on your point by clarifying that "roger rabbit?" will also trigger the LLM response.
Even with a normal search there is a link to get Quick Answer which gives the LLM result
I don't think that you are right. It is the search result that influence the llm generated result and not the opposite.
In your case, I think that it is just the interrogation point in itself at the end that somehow has an impact on the results you see.
It’s a feature of Kagi. Putting the question mark does invoke AI summaries.
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/ai/quick-answer.html
I know for the summary.
What I say is that the search results part of the page, with or without the summary should be the same in theory.
So if the other person saw a difference in the result returned it might be only because of the impact of the question mark character itself on the search index
Ahh thanks for the clarification, I misunderstood!
I'm more interested now than ever. A lot of my time spent searching is for obscure or hard-to-find stuff, and in the past smaller search engines were useless for this. But most of my searches are quick and the primary thing slowing me down are Google product managers. So maybe Kagi is worth a try?
You can try it for free. I did my 300 searches on it and went, "Yep. This is better." and then converted to a paid user.
I think you might be happily surprised for sure.
It's awesome - highly recommend trying it
I subscribe also, and prefer it for most things.
However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.
Thanks for the suggestion. I try nonstandard search engines now and then and maybe this one will stick. Google certainly is trying their best to encourage me.
After about a year on Kagi my work browser randomly reverted to Google. I didn’t notice the page title, as my eyes go right to the results. I recoiled. 0 organic results without scrolling, just ads and sponsored links everywhere. It seems like Google boiled the frog one degree at a time. Everyone is in hell and just doesn’t know it, because it happened so gradually.
I’ve also tried various engines over the years. Kagi was the first one that didn’t have me needing to go back to Google. I regularly find things that people using Google seem to not find. The Assistant has solved enough of my AI needs that I don’t bother subscribing to any dedicated AI company. I don’t miss Google search at all.
I do still using Google Maps, as its business data still seems like the best out there, and second place isn’t even close. Kagi is working on their own maps, but that will be long road. I’m still waiting for Apple to really go all-in, instead of leaning on Yelp.
It’s useless. Worse than Google and no AI summary.
If you append a ? to your search it will prompt an AI query. And you can uprank/downrank results so I'm not sure in what universe it could be worse.
is there a way to make safari search bar on iOS show the kagi search term rather than the URL?
Maybe with Orion instead of Safari?
Apple really needs to update Safari to let people choose their search engine, instead of just having the list of blessed search engines to choose from.
Kagi has an extension to add itself. https://help.kagi.com/kagi/getting-started/setting-default/s...
This is what I used, but it’s a bit of a hack. It has to hijack one of the other search engine, which then becomes unusable. It also doesn’t show the search term in the address bar, like the person was asking for.
You can thank Apple for that, presumably because they receive a ton of money from Google.
Google isn’t the only option in the list.
And of course it’s Apple’s fault, they wrote Safari. I submitted a feature request a while ago, but I’m guessing more people need to do the same.
Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes
6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers and usually all in F not C ... despite Google knowing location ... I used it as an example at the time of 'how hard can this be?'
First sentance of Google AI response right now: "Pork is safe to eat when cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F (63°C)"
Dear lord please don’t use an AI overview answer for food safety.
If you made a bet with your friend and are using the AI overview to settle it, fine. But please please click on an actual result from a trusted source if you’re deciding what temperature to cook meat to
The problem is that SEO has made it hard to find trustworthy sites in the first place. The places I trust the most now for getting random information is Reddit and Wikipedia, which is absolutely ridiculous as they are terrible options.
But SEO slop machines have made it so hard to find the good websites without putting in more legwork than makes sense a lot of the time. Funnily enough, this makes AI look like a good option to cut through all the noise despite its hallucinations. That's obviously not acceptable when it comes to food safety concerns though.
If I do that search on Google right now, the top result is the National Pork Board (pork.org): ad-free, pop-up free, waffle-free and with the correct answer in large font at the top of the page. It's in F, but I always stick " C" at the end of temperature queries. In this case that makes the top result foodsafety.gov which is equally if not more authoritative, also ad-, waffle-, and popup- free and with with the answer immediately visible.
Meanwhile the AI overview routinely gives me completely wrong information. There's zero chance I'm going to trust it when a wrong answer can mean I give my family food poisoning.
I agree that there is a gigaton of crap out there, but the quality information sources are still there too. Google's job is to list those at the top and it actually has done so this time, although I'll acknowledge it doesn't always and I've taken to using Kagi in preference for this reason. A crappy AI preview that can't be relied on for anything isn't an acceptable substitute.
Kagi sort of gets this correct.
Kagi search gives the pork board first as well. But note that site fails mtkd's requirements giving temperature in degrees Fahrenheit and not Celsius. The second hit does give a correct temperature but has a cookie banner (which at least can be rejected with one click)
The optional Kagi assistant quotes the pork board, usda which also is only in Fahrenheit, and third a blog on site for a thermometer that quoted the UK Food Standard Authority and gives its temperature
However there is a problem the UK FSA does not agree with USDA on the temperature it puts it higher at 70 degrees C rather than 63
So if you get the USDA figure you are taking a risk. The Kagi Assistant gives both temperatures but it is not clear which one is correct although both figures are correctly linked to the actual sites.
I don't really see the problem with F and C. As I mentioned, I always stick " C" on the end of temperature queries. It's 2 characters and the results always have the centigrade temps, on both Kagi and Google.
The OPs main complaint was lack of C when that is the temperature scale used in their country
Of course. What else would I think they were complaining about? I also live in a country that uses C. That's why I always stick " C" on the end of temperature queries.
It would be nice if they automatically prioritised those results, but that's a search engine improvement and nobody's working on those any more [1]. A half-arsed AI summary that can't be trusted to get the actual temperature right certainly doesn't solve it.
[1] Except Kagi, and even they're distracted by the AI squirrel.
The point is that the AI just gives you the answer without you having to concern yourself with what measurement system they use in the US.
As I said, it routinely gives incorrect data so it can't be relied on for something that matters, like a safe cooking temperature.
Note that we're talking about the Google AI Summary here, not AI in general. Whatever magical capabilities you think your favoured model has or will soon have, the Google AI Summary is currently utter garbage and routinely spouts nonsense. (Don't try and persuade me otherwise. I have to use Google at work so I see its lies first hand every day.)
I think the point is that the convenience outweighs the accuracy for now! I just look it up with AI then overcook it to be safe.
What was the point in looking it up then?
You know, at "I'd rather overcook my food than click the top result on my search", I think I'm done.
Google could have cut down on this if they wanted. And in general they did until they fired Matt Cutts.
The reality is, every time someone's search is satisfied by an organic result is lost revenue for Google.
Which is the stupidest position ever if Google wants to exist long term.
Unfortunately there are no workable alternatives. DDG is somehow not better, though I use it to avoid trackers.
It's a bit like the Easter Islanders cutting down all of their trees for wood. Where does Google management think they'll get search results if they kill the entire internet? Has anyone at Google thought that far ahead?
The internet they dream of is like a large mall. It consists of service providers selling you something, and Google directing you to them in exchange for some of the profit. The role of users in this model is that of a Piñata that everyone hits on to drop some money.
DDG is just serving you remixed bing and yandex results. There’s basically no alternative to GBY that do their own crawling and maintain their own index.
qwant ?
Qwant also has an AI overview. Pretty bad too.
I've been using noai.duckduckgo.com for a few weeks now and it's pretty reliable. Still yandex etc. but at least no longer AI overview. (Yes, I know about settings, but they get deleted every restart).
>The problem is that SEO has made it hard to find trustworthy sites in the first place.
We should remember that's partly Google's fault as well. They decided SEO sites were OK.
Well, they decided which sites were OK, and then people SEO'd a bunch of crap into Google's idea of a good website.
I'm no fan of Google but it's not so simple to figure out what's relevant, good content on the scale of the internet, while confronted by an army of adversarial actors who can make money by working out what you value in a site.
It is a game of whack-a-mole in some sense, but Google also isn't swinging the mallet very fast.
AI is being influenced by all that noise. It isn’t necessarily going to an authoritative source, it’s looking at Reddit and some SEO slop and using that to come up with the answer.
We need AI that’s trained exclusively on verified data and not random websites and internet comments.
I asked Gemini about some Ikea furniture dimensions and it gave seemingly correct answers, until it suddenly didn't make sense.
Turns out all the information it gave me came from old Reddit posts and lots of it was factually wrong. Gemini however still linked some official Ikea pages as the "sources".
It'll straight up lie to you and then hide where it actually got it's info from. Usually Reddit.
Creating better datasets would also help to improve the performance of the models, I would assume. Unfortunately, the costs to produce high-quality datasets of a sufficient size seem prohibitive today.
I'm hopeful this will be possible in the future though, maybe using a mix of 1) using existing LLMs to help humans filter the existing internet-scale datasets, and/or 2) finding some new breakthroughs to make model training more data efficient.
It'll still hallucinate
I've been finding that the proliferation of AI slop is at its worst on recipe/cooking/nutrition sites, so....
Please find a trusted source of information for food safety information.
It's genuinely harder than it's ever been to find good information on the internet, but when you're dealing with food safety information, it's really worth taking the extra minute to find a definitive source.
https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i...
The site you linked to is published by the American government who are actively anti-science, removing access to research and cutting funding for ideological reasons, denying widely accepted climate and medical facts etc. I wouldn't trust that source at all.
I mean, I'm absolutely not going to take the current FDA's guidance on drinking raw milk. You need to evaluate what you're willing to trust for yourself. I printed out the pre-January 2025 FDA vaccine schedule, so I could compare it against any updated recommendations.
All that said, the cooking temperatures aren't something that they've changed, and I would still rely on the US government published number over a AI generated value
Mmm, I see this cutting both ways -- generally, I'd agree; safety critical things should not be left to an AI. However, cooking temperatures are information that has a factual ground truth (or at least one that has been decided on), has VERY broad distribution on the internet, and generally is a single, short "kernel" of information that has become subject to slop-ifying and "here's an article when you're looking for about 30 characters of information or less" that is prolific on the web.
So, I'd agree -- safety info from an LLM is bad. But generally, the /flavor/ (heh) of information that such data comprises is REALLY good to get from LLMs (as opposed to nuanced opinions or subjective feedback).
I don’t know. I searched for how many chapters a popular manga has on Google and it gave me the wrong answer (by an order of magnitude). I only found out later and it did really piss me off because I made a trek to buy something that never existed. I should’ve known better.
I don’t think this is substantively different from cooking temperature, so I’m not trusting that either.
Eh I think it is. Arcane things -- sure, that might be a bit of a stretch. My general rule of thumb is that if I would expect ~10% of people to know the information factually, I can likely trust what an LLM tells me.
Really?
[0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png
Idk. Maybe that's true today (though even today I'm not sure) but how long before AI becomes better than just finding random text on a website?
After all, AI can theoretically ask follow-up questions that are relevant, can explain subtleties peculiar to a specific situation or request, can rephrase things in ways that are clearer for the end user.
Btw, "What temperature should a food be cooked to" is a classic example of something where lots of people and lots of sources repeat incorrect information, which is often ignored by people who actually cook. Famously, the temp that is often "recommended" is only the temp at which bacteria/whatever is killed instantly - but is often too hot to make the food taste good. What is normally recommended is to cook to a lower temperature but keep the food at that temperature for a bit longer, which has the same effect safety-wise but is much better.
> Btw, "What temperature should a food be cooked to" is a classic example of something where lots of people and lots of sources repeat incorrect information, which is often ignored by people who actually cook. Famously, the temp that is often "recommended" is only the temp at which bacteria/whatever is killed instantly
I love this reply because you support your own point by repeating information that is technically incorrect.
To qualify myself, I have a background in food service. I've taken my "Food Safe" course in Ontario which is not legally mandated to work in food service, but offered by our government-run health units and many restaurants require a certificate to be employed in any food handling capacity (wait staff or food prep).
There is no such thing as "killed instantly." The temperature recommendations here in Canada, for example, typically require that the food be held at that temperature for a minimum of 15 seconds.
There is some truth in what you say. Using temperature to neutralize biological contaminants is a function of time and you can certainly accomplish the same result by holding food at lower temperature for a longer period of time. Whether this makes the food "taste better" or not depends on the food and what you're doing.
Sous Vide cooking is the most widely understood method of preparation where we hold foods at temperatures that are FAR lower than what is typically recommended, but held for much longer. I have cooked our family Thanksgiving Turkey breast at 60C sous vide, and while I personally like it... others don't like the texture. So your mileage may vary.
My point is that you're making a bunch of claims that have grains of truth to them, but aren't strictly true. I think your comment is an application of the dunning kruger effect. You know a little bit and because of that you think you know way more than you actually do. And I had to comment because it is beautifully ironic. Almost as if that paragraph in your comment is, itself, AI slop lol
> And I had to comment because it is beautifully ironic. Almost as if that paragraph in your comment is, itself, AI slop lol
Glad to be of service :) I think that's the first time a comment of mine has been accused of being AI slop. Sorry to say, every word - correct or incorrect - is mine.
> To qualify myself, I have a background in food service.
I'm just a person who watches cooking YouTube a bit, so right off the bat - I'll defer to your expertise on this.
I'm not sure we really disagree much though. My rough memory is that the guidelines specify temperature at which things are killed, I don't know if "instantly" or "15 seconds" really makes a difference in practice.
> Sous Vide cooking is the most widely understood method of preparation where we hold foods at temperatures that are FAR lower than what is typically recommended, but held for much longer.
Sous Vide is where I was first exposed to this concept, but I was more referring to things like chicken breasts, etc, which often aren't great at the minimal internal temperature, but I've seen YouTube "chefs" recommend cooking them to a slightly lower temperature, banking on the idea that they will effectively be at a slightly lower temperature, but long enough to still effectively kill bacteria. I've even seen criticism of the FDA charts for exactly this reason.
But to clarify, this is far outside any expertise I actually have.
> I think your comment is an application of the dunning kruger effect. You know a little bit and because of that you think you know way more than you actually do.
Absolutely possible.
> , but I was more referring to things like chicken breasts, etc, which often aren't great at the minimal internal temperature, but I've seen YouTube "chefs" recommend cooking them to a slightly lower temperature, banking on the idea that they will effectively be at a slightly lower temperature, but long enough to still effectively kill bacteria.
Something that is very common is removing food from the heat source before the internal temperature hits your target because heat transfer itself takes time and so the food will continue to cook inside for a short period of time after being removed. This is because the outside, which you are blasting with heat that is far higher than your internal target, will partly transfer to the inside (the rest will dissipate into the air). So if you remove it from the heat exactly when you hit the internal temp, you can exceed the target temperature and your food will be "over cooked."
The problem with a tv chef recommending using a traditional cooking method, such as baking or frying, to TARGET a lower temperature, is that is very hard with those mediums to control for time. What you are doing with those mediums is you are blasting the outside of your food with a temperature that is far hotter than your internal target.
And so say, for example, you have your oven set to 180C and you are cooking chicken and your internal temperature target is, let's say 4 degrees cooler than the official recommendation. So the official recommendation is 74C held for a minimum of 15 seconds (that's Canada) and you are targeting 70C. With traditional cooking methods, you are playing a guessing game where you're blasting the outside of the food with very hot temperatures in order to bring the inside of the food up to some target.
I don't know off hand how much longer you would have to hold at 70C to get the same effect as 15 seconds at 74C ... but while you're waiting, your food is likely to exceed 74C anyway because of the high temperatures you're working with.
So that's why I talked about sous vide... becuase it's kind of the only way you can control for those variables. No oven can hold steady at temps as low as 70C (even at higher temps they fluctuate quite a bit. Anywhere from 5C - 20C depending on the oven).
And yeah - we definitely agree on most things. The minimum recommended temperatures are "play it safe" rather than "make food delicious." I do recognize that that was ultimately your point :)
It wasn't really my point to pick on you or argue with you, but to show that certain things you said are "partly true", which is a common complaint of AI (that and hallucinations). When we're dealing with things like food safety and the general public, it is usually better to offer general advise that is play it safe.
And with certain foods this matters more than others. Chickens get infected with salmonella while they are alive, for example, and so the bacteria can live throughout the meat. Whereas if you're cooking beef, you really only need to worry about surface contamination and so you can sear a steak for a few seconds and have it still be very "blue" in the middle and you're good.
Meanwhile, in Germany, you can get raw pork with raw onions on a bread roll at just about every other bakery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett
When I searched for the safe temperature for pork (in German), I found this as the first link (Kagi search engine)
> Ideally, pork should taste pink, with a core temperature between 58 and 59 degrees Celsius. You can determine the exact temperature using a meat thermometer. Is that not a health concern? Not anymore, as nutrition expert Dagmar von Cramm confirms: > “Trichinae inspection in Germany is so strict — even for wild boars — that there is no longer any danger.”
https://www.stern.de/genuss/essen/warum-sie-schweinefleisch-...
Stern is a major magazine in Germany.
I was just thinking that EU sources might be a good place to look for this sort of thing, given that we never really know what basic public health facts will be deemed political in the US on any given day. But, this reveals a bit of a problem—of course, you guys have food safety standards, so advice they is safe over there might not be applicable in the US.
Doesn't even have to be "better", just "different". The classic one is whether you should refrigerate eggs, which has diametrically opposite answers.
But anything that actually matters could be politicized at any time. I remember the John Gummer Burger Incident: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/369625.stm , in the controversy over whether prion diseases in beef (BSE) were a problem.
what a cringe comment
Should "Taste pink", you say
It’s just the ChatGPT translation, and it’s a literal one. That said, I’ve never heard that phrase in German either.
The literal translation is wrong in that context, it should have been translated to “medium”.
I googled (Australia) "what temp is pork safe at?", top three hits:
1. https://www.foodsafety.asn.au/australians-clueless-about-saf... 2. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i... 3. https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/
All three were highly informative, well cited sources from reputable websites.
Only your second link provides good information in a convenient format (both F and C), first and third are useless.
Funny story, I used that to know the cooked temperature of burgers, it said medium-rare was 130. I proceeded to eating it and all, but then like half way through, I noticed the middle of this burger is really red looking, doesn't seem normal, and suddenly I remembered, wait, ground beef is always supposed to be 160, 130 medium-rare is for steak.
I then chatted that back to it, and it was like, oh ya, I made a mistake, you're right, sorry.
Anyways, luckily I did not get sick.
Moral of the story, don't get mentally lazy and use AI to save you the brain it takes for simple answers.
Do you actually put a thermometer in your burgers/steaks/meat when you’re cooking? That seems really weird.
Why are people downvoting this? I’ve literally never seen anyone use a thermometer to cook a burger or steak or pork chop. A whole roasted turkey, sure.
You're getting lots of thermometer answers, so I'm going to give the opposite: I'm also on team "looks good to me" + "cooking time on packet" + "just cut it and look"
Many people wing dishes that they've prepared 100s of times. Others rarely make the same recipe twice. Neither are correct or incorrect, but the latter is very much going to measure everything they're doing carefully (or fail often).
What sort of world you must live in to find using a food thermometer "really weird"
It’s definitely weird. People cook food until it looks done, they don’t neurotically measure the temperature.
For something safety critical like a burger, yes.
For whole meats, it's usually safe to be rare and you can tell that by feel, though a thermometer is still useful if you aren't a skilled cook or you are cooking to a doneness you aren't familiar with.
Why wouldn't I? It takes a few seconds and my thermometer just sits on fridge.
I think your reference pool is just small. I absolutely use it for meat and especially for ground meat, which has a much higher chance of contamination.
I suspect your reference pool is the small one. Most people buy their burgers in a packet and hence follow the timing instructions on that packet.
Perhaps this varies by region? I don't know anyone that buys burgers in a packet. They buy ground beef and either make patties or balls (for smash burgers).
I don't do much of the shopping, but we get costco frozen burger patties for most of our home burgers. I don't think it costs more than the same weight of 'whole' ground beef, and it's convenient.
Those are thin enough I wouldn't think to stick a thermometer in them... it would be too hard to get it in the center and not out the other side, and it's pretty easy to get a sense of doneness from the outside (or cut into one and see). Steaks, depending on who's eating and doneness preferences, thermometer is nice. Roasts, almost certainly.
So your reference pool is you and mine is everyone I’ve ever seen cook a burger or steak or pork chop. Which one is smaller?
If you've never seen it and I see it all the time, I don't think it's me.
thermometers were recommended by folks like alton brown and kenji to get really consistent results.
i havent heard it for burgers, but steaks for sure.
People are downvoting you because you’ve come onto a website populated by engineers and called someone weird for using objective measurements.
> Anyways, luckily I did not get sick.
Why would you purchase meat that you suspect is diseased? Even if you cook it well-done, all the (now dead) bacteria and their byproducts are still inside. I don't understand why people do this to themselves? If I have any suspicion about some meat, I'll throw it away. I'm not going to cook it.
Safe Temperatures for Pork
People have been eating pork for over 40,000 years. There’s speculation about whether pork or beef was first a part of the human diet.
(5000 words later)
The USDA recommends cooking pork to at least 145 degrees.
I searched it.
First result under the overview is the National Pork Board, shows the answer above the fold, and includes visual references: https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/
Most of the time if there isn't a straightforward primary source in the top results, Google's AI overview won't get it right either.
Given the enormous scale and latency constraints they're dealing with, they're not using SOTA models, and they're probably not feeding the model 5000 words worth of context from every result on the page.
Not only that, it includes a link to the USDA reference so you can verify it yourself. I have switched back to google because of how useful I find the RAG overviews.
The link is the only useful part, since you can’t trust the summary.
Maybe they could just show the links that match your query and skip the overview. Sounds like a billion-dollar startup idea, wonder why nobody’s done it.
It’s a pretty good billion dollar idea, I think you’ll do well. In fact I bet you’ll make money hand over fist, for years. You could hire all the best engineers and crush the competition. At that point you control the algorithm that everyone bases their websites on, so if you were to accidentally deploy a series of changes that incentivized low quality contentless websites… it wouldn’t matter at all; not your problem. Now that the quality of results is poor, but people still need their queries answered, why don’t you provide them the answers yourself? You could keep all the precious ad revenue that you previously lost when people clicked on those pesky search results.
This should be the top comment! Thank you for posting it because I'm starting to worry that I'm the only one who realizes how ridiculous this all is.
As of a couple weeks ago it had a variety of unsafe food recommendations regarding sous vide, e.g. suggesting 129F for 4+ hours for venison backstrap. That works great some of the time but has a very real risk of bacterial infiltration (133F being similar in texture and much safer, or 2hr being a safer cook time if you want to stick to 129F).
Trust it if you want I guess. Be cautious though.
A shorter cook time is safer? Do you sear it afterwards or something?
The problem is that 129F is a borderline safe temperature at any length of time. 3-4hrs is closer to what you want to kill _all_ the salmonella and e coli, but 2hrs kills enough that it's very likely to be safe, and 129F isn't a sufficient temperature for any length of time to kill clostridium perfringens and other similar bacteria, resulting in spoilage occasionally with a greatly increased likelihood the longer you cook it.
Separately, yes, you do normally sear it afterwards. It's for flavor/appearence/texture reasons though, and a number of people recommend mildly chilling it (say, for 15min or so) first so that you don't overcook any of the interior from the sear. The pan should be much hotter than a lot of people expect.
Google's search rankings are also the thing driving those ridiculous articles to the top, which is the only reason so many of them get written...
And also why they incentivized all this human written training data that will no longer be incentivized
I wonder how people have such awful experiences with (traditional) Google when I don't and really never have.
First result: https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06...
Second result: https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/
On Google: """what temp in C is pork safe at?"""
AI: 63C
First result: Five year old reddit thread (F only discussion, USDA mentioned).
Second result: ThermoWorks blog (with 63C).
Third result: FoodSafety.gov (with 63C)
Forth result: USDA (with 63C)
Seems reasonable enough to scan 3-4 results to get some government source.
It’s only useful if you can trust it, and you very much cannot.
I know you can’t necessarily trust anything online, but when the first hit is from the National Pork Board, I’m confident the answer is good.
But for the OP it is not as it does not give a temperature in their preferred units and probably USDA gives the wrong temperature in their locality.
The only advantage is the automatic unit conversion, and that introduces a second point where the summary can get it wrong. If the source gives an incorrect answer then the AI summary is just going to repeat it, if you’re lucky.
Yes USDA gives the wrong value for Canadians and Britons
> 6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?
No it wasn't, most of the first page results have the temperature right there in the summary, many of them with both F and C, and unlike the AI response, there is much lower chance of hallucinated results.
So you've gained nothing
PS Trying the same search with -ai gets you the full table with temperatures, unlike with the AI summary where you have to click to get more details, so the new AI summary is strictly worse
Honestly the SEO talk sounds like reflexive coping in this discourse. I get that WWW has cheapened quality, but we now have the tech that could defeat most of the SEO and other trash tactics on the search engine side. Text analysis as a task is cracked open. Google and such could detect dark patterns with LLMs, or even just deep learning. This would probably be more reliable than answering factual queries.
The problem is there is no money and fame in using it that way, or at least so people think in the current moment. But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30.
Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.
> But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30.
We could.
But it will absolutely not happen unless and until it can be more profitable than Google's current model.
What's your plan?
> Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.
Well, yes. That's the problem. Why rely on the same random liars as taste-makers?
"full moon time NY"
> The next full moon in New York will be on August 9th, 2025, at 3:55 a.m.
"full moon time LA"
> The next full moon in Los Angeles will be on August 9, 2025, at 3:55 AM PDT.
I mean, it certainly gives an immediate answer...
Why do you think that answer is correct? I mean maybe it is, or maybe it’s by the same user who recommended eating rocks (which ‘AI’ also recommended).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o
This is the first search result for me: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food...
It doesn't take long to find SEO slop trying to sell you something:
When our grandmothers and grandfathers were growing up, there was a real threat to their health that we don’t face anymore. No, I’m not talking about the lack of antibiotics, nor the scarcity of nutritious food. It was trichinosis, a parasitic disease that used to be caught from undercooked pork.
The legitimate worry of trichinosis led their mothers to cook their pork until it was very well done. They learned to cook it that way and passed that cooking knowledge down to their offspring, and so on down to us. The result? We’ve all eaten a lot of too-dry, overcooked pork.
But hark! The danger is, for the most part, past, and we can all enjoy our pork as the succulent meat it was always intended to be. With proper temperature control, we can have better pork than our ancestors ever dreamed of. Here, we’ll look at a more nuanced way of thinking about pork temperatures than you’ve likely encountered before."
Sorry, what temperature was it again?
Luckily there's the National Pork Board which has bought its way to the top, just below the AI overview. So this time around I won't die from undercooked pork at least.
The link quoted does not have that text so what are you on about?
However that site gives the temperature for Pork as 71C which is not what USDA says but is correct. So using the USDA recommendation does have a risk according to at least Canada and UK
> but is correct
That's the thing, though — there isn't an objective standard here; it's mediated both by the local context (how good are the local trich inspections, etc.) and risk tolerance vs. cultural expectations for how the meat should taste. The Canadian and US governments currently disagree; so it goes.
Everything "has a risk". Taste and smell are not reliable indicators of bacterial contamination, and properly cooking meat won't eliminate dangerous toxins left behind by prior contamination if the meat was improperly stored before cooking.
The issue is more when those same tools start replacing deeper content or misrepresenting nuanced info
Don’t forget to add glue and rocks
AI overview also says 165f is the best temperature to cook chicken breast to. Which is and always has been bollocks.
And it's trained at least a few people how to ruin chicken breast :D
Incredible, you are the problem. Didn't think I'd see such an idiotic answer on HN, please for the love of god do not use AI to know what is safe to eat.
id consider that google thinks its good enough for people to base their food safety off of it, and they deserve to get sued for whatever theyre worth for providing said recommendations when somebody trusts them and gets sick
Why is this being framed as a problem? People are obviously happier with the new feature, duh
Of course they need to make the AI overviews suck less, but saying it’s unfair to sites is crazy talk because your site now just generates less value than an AI response if that’s what stopped you from going
If you have content better than Gemini I will still go to your site
Where do you suppose AI overviews get their source from? The problem here is Google is now inserting itself between a business' user and the business' content. I'm not saying that was a good or invulnerable business to begin with but that's what's happened. If you kill the business of making reliable content, what are they left to serve?
> If you have content better than Gemini I will still go to your site
No, you won't. Because how will you know that my site exists?
For the past ten years I've run a side project that estimates the word count of books and how long it takes to read them. Maintaining and improving this requires tens of hours a month, and a few hundred dollars in RDS, ECS, etc. costs. Two years ago I was at least breaking even on affiliate income, so the cost put into it was purely my own time and effort which I enjoy. These days my total traffic numbers are about 10x, but human traffic is down 50-70%.
I'm basically paying to host content for AI crawlers to scrape and I don't know how much longer I can do this. I'm adding Goodreads-esque features currently, but if it doesn't get the sign ups I'll be forced to archive the code and take the site down.
Why are you not using a CDN or edge worker? This boggles my mind that you don’t just have something that can scale to billions of requests for pennies
Because some companies are going bankrupt because of the data google is taking. Google always had a weird relationship with sites, they sort of needed each other but google always had the upper hand, now it’s even worse
They don't have the upper hand anymore. They are desperately trying to stay relevant, so that users don't just skip Google altogether and use ChatGPT or other AI directly.
Wouldn’t you expect AI to displace some companies though? As did every major technology?
A lot of companies seem to have based their business model on the assumption that Google and Microsoft would continue to send them traffic for free indefinitely.
So now they're having to scramble to rethink their approach, and obviously aren't happy about that.
Some people are against all kinds of progress. They don't understand that their life depends on progress that was made in the past.
That does not imply that future progress is a good thing, nor does it imply that future progress will even be useful to the majority. It boggles my mind how some people make the logical inference that "all progress is good" based on "some past progress was useful".
Do you think that having fast, distraction-free access to relevant information is not useful?
It is useful, but it assumes the information is trustworthy. At least with websites you could discern some credibility based on the organization publishing the information. With AI summaries, it's just "Google's latest model seems to think this is the answer, good luck!"
You can always follow the source links.. or ask for them..
I think it's too much information to handle, and that information can interfere with the enjoymnet of what we already have. It might be useful in an economic sense, but its usefulness to life is questionable.
Personally, I think it's not such a good thing after all.
This is because they have entrenched themselves in a comfortable position that they don’t want to give up. Most won’t admit this to be the actual reason.
Think about it: you are a normal hands on self thought software developer. You grew up tinkering with Linux and a bit of hardware. You realise there’s good money to be made in a software career. You do it for 20-30 years; mostly the same stuff over and over again. Some Linux, c#, networking. Your life and hobby revolves around these technologies. And most importantly you have a comfortable and stable income that entrenches your class and status. Anything that can disrupt this state is obviously not desireable. Never mind that disrupting others careers is why you have a career in the first place.
C#?
You think every new technology is inherently a good thing and good for society?
> Some people are against all kinds of progress. They don't understand that their life depends on progress that was made in the past.
Not all change is progress. You can't point at some random change and declare "Progress!".
This is a change. It likely is progress, but at this point there's still a chance that it is not progress.
You can apparently disable these annoying and useless "AI" overviews by cursing in the query:
https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/01/just-give-me-the-fing...
It's relatively straightforward to create a firefox alternate search engine which defaults to the "web" tab of Google search results which is mostly free of Google-originated LLM swill.
Instructions are here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-custom-search-engin...
The "URL with %s in place of search term" to add is:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&client=firefox-b-d&udm=14
Google was kind enough to give the AI overview a stable CSS class name (to date), so this userscript has been effective at hiding it for me:
window.addEventListener('load', function() { var things = this.document.getElementsByClassName('M8OgIe'); for (var thing of things) { thing.style.display = 'none'; } }, false);
Or just append with -ai => "how to pick a running shoe -ai"
Those four characters are enough friction to slowly grind down the number of today's outraged people into a population small enough that, when Google stop supporting '-ai', people will think it's weird that you still care.
>useless
They’re actually pretty useful. It tends to be a very brief summary of the top results, so you can tell if anything is worth clicking on.
appending a -"fuck google #{insert slur of choice here}" to my search results has improved them. Then I wonder why I do this to myself and ponder going back to kagi.
Jesus dude. Just use the udm options instead of practicing slurs.
I wish there was a good udm option for "what you used to show me before AI took over". For example, I like seeing flight updates when I punch in a flight number, which udm=14 does not show.
That said, udm=14 has still been a huge plus for me in terms of search engine usability, so it's my default now.
The tricky thing for Google will be to do this and not kill their cash cow ad business.
Ads inside LLMs (e.g. pay $ to boost your product in LLM recommendation) is going to be a big thing.
My guess is that Google/OpenAI are eyeing each other - whoever does this first.
Why would that work? It's a proven business model. Example: I use LLMs for product research (e.g. which washing machine to buy). Retailer pays if link to their website is included in the results. Don't want to pay? Then redirect the user to buy it on Walmart instead of Amazon.
I actually encountered this pretty early in one of these user tuned GPT's in OpenAI's GPT store. It was called Sommelier or something and it was specialized in conversations about wine. It was pretty useful at first, but after a few weeks it started lacing all its replies with tips for wines from the same online store. Needless to say, I dropped it immediately.
Forget links, agents are gonna just go upstream to the source and buy it for you. I think it will change the game because intent will be super high and conversion will go through the roof.
Yeah I’m gonna give an AI agent my credit card and complete autonomy with my finances so it can hallucinate me a new car. I love getting findommed.
Look, the car shop might not bill you at all because their A.I agent will hallucinate the purchase, so I don't see why you're so pessimistic about agents.
It can still give you an overview with a few choices and a link to the prepared checkout page, and you enter your CC details yourself.
That’s basically what any halfway decent e-commerce site is today
Feels like this hope is in the same vein as Amazon Dash and then the expectation that people would buy shit with voice assistants like Alexa.
People are already wary of hosted LLMs having poisoned training data. That might kill them altogether and push everyone to using eg Qwen3-coder.
No, a small group of highly tech-literate people are wary of this. Your personal bubble is wary of this. So is some of mine. "People" don't care and will use the packaged, corporate, convenient version with the well-known name.
People who are aware of that and care enough to change consumption habits are an inconsequential part of the market.
I don't know, a bunch of the older people from the town I grew up in avoided using LLMs until Grok came out because of what they saw going on with alignment in the other models (they certainly couldn't articulate this but listening to what said it's what they were thinking.) Obviously Grok has the same problems but I think it goes to show the general public is more aware of the issue than they get credit for.
You combine this with Apple pushing on device inference and making it easy and anything like ads probably will kill hosted LLMs for most consumers.
Yeah, average people that I know (across continents) just ChatGPT their way into literally anything without a second thought. They don't care.
Maybe Grok was just pushed by their political influencers. It’s a republican, anti-woke LLM after all.
Who doesn’t want to associate their product with unreliability and incorrect information? Think about that reputational damage.
Not tricky at all.
This is a new line of business that provides them with more ad space to sell.
If the overview becomes a trusted source of information, then all they need to do is inject ads in the overviews. They already sort of dye that. Imagine it as a sort of text based product placement.
I'd say putting ads into AI search overviews is absolutely tricky.
You might think that's the correct way to do it, but there is likely much more to it than it seems.
If it wasn't tricky at all you'd bet they would've done it already to maximize revenue.
Product teams in big companies move slow. But soon enough all the shit ads are going to pop up.
> If the overview becomes a trusted source of information
It never will. By disincentivizing publishers they're stripping away most of the motivation for the legitimate source content to exist.
AI search results are a sort of self-cannibalism. Eventually AI search engines will only have what they cached before the web became walled gardens (old data), and public gardens that have been heavily vandalized with AI slop (bad data).
I’d guess that the searches where AI overviews are useful and the searches where companies are buying ads are probably fairly distinct. If you search for plumbers near you, they won’t show an AI overview, while if you search “Why are plants green?”, no one was buying ads on that.
Everyone is talking about it , and it is a big concern, but the last 2 years (ever since ChatGPT showed up) ad revenue keeps growing at the same 10%+ . It seems like the money queries (adidas shoes size 45) are still better served with links than overviews, and those are where most of the money comes from. Searching for "what cooking temperature is pork safe to eat" is not something you can easily monetize.
Disclaimer: google stock holder.
> The tricky thing for Google will be to do this and not kill their cash cow ad business
This is not for Google to decide.
The users have spoken clearly that (when given an option) they will not tolerate or succumb to the SPAM of shitty SEO-optimized content-farms which has been plaguing the internet for the last decade.
If Google don't provide meaningful results in their search page, people will use ChatGPT or something else to sidestep the SEO SPAM issue all together.
Somebody is working on "native advertising" in AI slop, surely? Barf.
you can’t make the slop have a nice clean ad in it. Also: as soon as your slop has ads in it, I’m going to make Polpot advertise your product.
Related, but to whichever PM put the "AI Mode" on the far left side of the toolbar, thus breaking the muscle memory from clicking "All" to get back from "Images", I expect some thanks for unintentionally boosting your CTR metrics.
That decision probably paid someone's new car. The KPIs will be excellent. Who cares about what the users might have wanted to do with their clicks.
Maybe have it forced hover under the mouse cursor next, maybe think of what the long term effect are instead of the KPIs.
What I don't understand is how do you square that with google still reporting growth in ads revenues. Surely google's business should tank by that much (not even taking into account the additional cost of processing a seach with AI).
> What I don't understand is how do you square that with google still reporting growth in ads revenues.
Advertiser sees fewer hits from ad campaign, assumes it's their competitors, then raises their budget slightly to better compete in the ad auction.
Multiply that by about 300m businesses.
The signals that Google's customers (the advertisers) get is not "Your ad was ignored after we answer the user's query directly", it's "Your ad was ignored". The advertisers cannot tell why the ad was ignored.
I don't think advertisers are so naive than to not be aware that google now answers many queries with AI.
Maybe… it was always a lie?
Main reason:
Google seach ranking already became so bad that finding the right query to produce a decent result became a craft in and of itself.
HN readers might not realize this, but I used to constantly have to search things for friends and family as they just couldn't find it with Google.
The AI result is a godsend fir them. I saw a massive drop in their requests to me.
The clicks in question: "Here's a thirty page story of how grandma discovered this recipe... BTW you need to subscribe/make an account/pay to view the rest of the article!"
If Google just copied and pasted the content from my blog and put it on their own website which had ads that paid them, preventing customers from going to my blog (and thus seeing my ads which I get paid for), that would be obviously wrong.
How is this any different?
Liberating me from "search clicks" is not a bad thing at all. I suspect many of us though don't even go to <search engine> anyway but ask an LLM directly.
It's fundamentally self-destructive though. In time, the sites which rely on search clicks for revenue will essentially cease to be paid for their work, and in many cases will therefore stop publishing the high-quality material that you're looking for.
I assumed that, after having using LLMs myself increasingly, that LLM's killing search was inevitable anyway. Further I assume that Google recognizes it as well and would rather at least remain somewhat relevant?
Google search, as others have mentioned in this thread, increasingly fails to give me high-quality material anyway. Mostly it's just pages of SEO spam. I prefer that the LLM eat that instead of me (just spit back up the relevant stuff, thankyouverymuch).
Honestly though, increasingly the internet for me is 1) a distraction from doing real work 2) YouTube (see 1) and 3) a wonderful library called archive.org (which, if I could grab a local snapshot would make leaving the internet altogether much, much easier).
By high quality material do you mean the 15 ads per page, ultra SEO optimized, content length extended posts that will give you a mediocre carbonara recipe?
Ad web has never incentivized quality and never will.
Sites rely on ad impressions for revenue. I block ads anyway so either way they aren’t getting money from me.
And if ad supported content ceases to exist, nothing of value will have been lost. I’m not morally opposed to advertising, I find ad supported content not worth reading especially on mobile.
>And if ad supported content ceases to exist, nothing of value will have been lost.
"Absolutely nothing on any website that relies on ads for revenue is of any value" is a wild take.
My sense is (call me naive if you like) but if the thing was of value, it would survive (or be reborn in another form) without ads. Donation supported sites (looking at you Wikipedia) or just passion projects would continue.
To be more precise, it might be air value but not worth the trade off of ads - they take away the value.
So you believe in free lunch.
If the ad sites die, the AI crawlers will rise the hosting costs of all others sites buy putting more traffic on them.
So either they start adding ads too or the sites die also
Before web advertising the entire web was a "free lunch" — if by free lunch you mean individuals putting their sites up; their only compensation being some degree of joy at spreading and sharing their passion.
The early web was eccentric and kind of … "shambly", but I would not be upset if we returned to that.
The “web” has been ad infested since shortly after Netscape was introduced. Are people forgetting about the X11 pop under ads and the “punch the monkey” banner ads.
Before AI crawler web traffic for sites was less.
So now individuals putting up their sites face the risk of higher traffic fees.
No, I pay for Apple News, Slate, Stratechery, Downstream+ (podcast), Accidental Tech podcast, etc.
I donate to electoral-vote.com via Patreon. Most of my news comes from podcasts and those ads don’t bother me as much as web ads. I said I wasn’t morally opposed to them.
I don’t use any app that is ad supported without the option to pay for an ad free experience the same with streaming services.
>I don’t use any app that is ad supported without the option to pay for an ad free experience
That is, obviously, still ad-supported content...
That's not my point.
Thanks to AI crawlers the traffic costs will rise and all the sites who were ad free either need additional income, most likely ads, or will shut down.
Services like CloudFlare are offering better services all of the time to block web crawlers.
ChatGPT lists clickable sources in a lot of nontrivial queries. Those sites don’t even need to pay OpenAI for the traffic (yet). If you ask „what’s happening in the world today“, you might get 20 links. How is this worse, exactly?
How many people click the links? What happens to LLMs if people don’t provide training data anymore because nobody visits their sites?
Cloudflare publishes a "crawl-to-refer" ratio, which can be used to estimate the traffic from LLMs:
https://radar.cloudflare.com/ai-insights#crawl-to-refer-rati...
They will either pay for it to be generated or get good enough at producing synthetic data that actually improves LLM quality.
So either even higher costs and hope that a bug problem of LLMs get solved somehow.
Given how much data they need that will be pretty expensive, I mean really really expensive. How many people can write good training data and how much per day?
Doesn’t sound sustainable.
Most of the time when I find a good answer from search it's one of a few things:
- Hobbyist site
- Forum or UGC
- Academic/gov
- Quality news which is often paywalled
Most of that stuff doesn't depend on ad clicks. The things that do depend on ad clicks are usually infuriating slop. I refuse to scroll through three pages of BS to get to the information I want and I really don't care if the slop farmers die off.
I'm intrigued as to why someone, presumably tech-savvy, would do that?
We know they aren't oracles and come up with a lot of false information in response to factual questions.
Google searches also come up with a lot of false information (well, it's where LLMs get their learnin' from — the Internet).
I'm never asking LLMs anything super critical like, "Do my taxes for me." This morning (as an example) I asked: "Is there talk of banning DJI drones in the U.S.?"
Later: "Difference between the RSE20 and RSS20 models of Yamaha electric guitars?"
And "Is there an Eco-Tank ink-jet suitable for Dye-Sub inks that can print Tabloid?"
1) None of the above are "critical".
2) All would have been a slight pain using Google and generated a lot of ... noise. LLMs eat the noise, do a decent job of giving me the salient points that answer my question.
3) All are easily verifiable if, for example, I decided to make a purchase based on what the LLM told me.
Or put another way, my disappointment in LLMs pales in comparison to my disappointment in search.
Or maybe I am just sick of search engines and want to "stick it to them".
In my view it's a pretty straightforward calculation. Nothing is free, no knowledge is instant. Start off knowing your time investment to learn anything is greater than zero and go from there..
If you do a Google (or other engine) search, you have to invest time pawing through the utter pile of shit that Google ads created on the web. Info that's hidden under reams of unnecessary text, potentially out of date, potentially not true; you'll need to evaluate a list of links and, probably, open multiple of them.
If you do an AI "search", you ask one question and get one answer. But the answer might a hallucination or based on incorrect info.
However, a lot of the time, you might be searching for something you already have an idea of, whether it's how to structure a script or what temperature pork is safe at; you can use your existing knowledge to assess the AI's answer. In that case the AI search is fast.
The rest of the time, you can at least tell the AI to include links to its references, and check those. Or its answer may help you construct a better Google search.
Ultimately search is a trash heap of Google's making, and I have absolute confidence in them also turning AI into a trash heap, but for now it is indeed faster for many purposes.
My site never got much traffic from Google and I never wasted time on SEO. So I find it hard to care about losing clicks I didn't have.
But I do find it concerning that Google is effectively stealing the time I spend on research and not offering proper credit. I'm always careful to credit people and provide extensive links to the work of others on my site. But here Google and others are simply stealing that work, getting it wrong, and then claiming they did all the effort.
A lot of startups like Profound are going after the "AEO" (basically SEO but of AI engine) space and absolutely blowing up. Marketers are freaking out. It's crazy to see the search juggernaut finally getting threatened.
For some (unknown to me) reason the web pages that used to sustain themselves on very small, quiet ads that were shown on sides of the page, now require full page, annoying, shouting, focus stealing, one-minimal-x-closing-after-few-seconds ADS. Therefore AI summary is a panaceum for this sickness.
However I understand that pages that have articles written need money to pay for those articles. For some another (unknown to me) reason reading something by AI and summarizing it is not a copyright violation, but the work that has been done to prepare the valuable content (article) will not be rewarded, therefore extrapolating it to future I can see that the 'dead internet theory' is coming right up.
People will stop writing because they don't get rewarded, so AIs will start speaking and discussing with other AIs and the entropy might lower (as in the amount of information present in the internet) leaving us to AI generated content only.
Which is of course Google’s short-sighted goal. See also their push to switch to full “AI mode” search which doesn’t show results at all.
It's a weird goal to me. Like, what's their end game here? Offer to manipulate the AI responses for ad money? Product placement in the summaries? I would hope those placements have to be disclosed as advertising, and it would immediately break trust in anything their AI outputs so surely that would only continue to harm them in the long run, no?
~57% of their revenue is from search advertising. How do they plan on replacing that?
I'm pretty sure their endgame right now is just "don't lose all of your market share to companies that _will_ use LLMs".
AI subscription would be my guess. Want better model ? Open your wallet.
Yea it is tricky for them -- the old model of "search, see google text / link ad, scroll, click website, scroll, see some ads on that page as well, done" will be replaced with "search, see google text / link ad, read AI result, 'and here are some relevant websites'" -- where all of the incentives there will be to "go into more depth" on the websites that are linked there.
So youd be surprised and scared - the Ad PMs I know are totally salivating at this. Their angle is "SEO is no more - it is GEO now". GenAI Engine Optimization. Welcome to the Futurama Internet Future!
"Futurama does not endorse the COOOOOOL crime of fraudulent misrepresentation!"
Seriously, Futurama and Cyberpunk and 1984 were all supposed to be warnings... not how-to manuals.
Total behavioral control through the augmentation of senses, emotions and all other sensibilities. Such political power is significantly more valuable than mere revenue.
Okay I think the question is still how they plan to convert this into cash, because political power can't buy food or pay your employees or be stored and quantified simply, which is why we invented money. Assuming this dystopian scenario is correct.
In a sense this is similar to what Amazon has been doing in few countries. Find top selling products, get them cheaper from somewhere, rebrand them, rank them higher and sell them. They don't need to invest in market research like their competetors, they get all data from Amazon.com
At big tech scale, this is clearly anti-compete and piracy IMHO.
Except in this case they still rely on people to create content to train their AI on.
people forget why users search - to find what they are looking for. as the saying goes, “No one wants a drill, they want a quarter inch hole.”
the first time i realized Google had a problem was when i used ChatGPT to search for Youtube videos, and compared to Youtube’s search, it was an order of magnitude easier to find the exact videos i was looking for.
Hallucinations are not a problem in a query like this, because i have what i need to evaluate the results: did i find interesting Youtube videos to watch? did i find what i was looking for?
generally speaking, users seek to minimize the effort required to achieve their goals.
Maybe if the search wasnt full of ads and scams
...the same content that the AI was trained on, you mean?
Thats not a real rebuttal.
First, in the pre training stage humans curate and filter the data thats actually used for training.
Then in the fine tuning stage people write ideal examples to teach task performance
Then there is reinforcement learning from human feedback RLHF where people rank multiple variations of the answer an AI gives, and thats part of the reinforcement loop
So there is really quite a bit of human effort and direction that goes into preventing the garbage-in garbage-out type situation you're referring to
At least they're not thrown in my face and appearing as eighteen pop-ups, notification requests, account-walls, SEOslop, and a partridge in a pear tree.
There is (IMO) still a lot of value in having a searchable Internet index. If AI summaries were the only option it would be very difficult to know whether something is influencing the AI.
The problem is, of course, that we've already lost that battle with Google and other search providers. We know they're influencing the results. There is no open Internet anymore, but at least we can check the different search indices against each other. Checking different AI summaries against each other seems a pretty fruitless endeavor.
Google introduced its Google Knowledge Graph in 2012 and for sure it caused the drop in website clicks but I would say not that significant. People want quality content and they will always look for quality websites with or without AI overviews. My digital marketing professor once said that customers who look beyond first page results are the most valuable ones, because they are dedicated users and customers. People who read AI overviews won't be your first class users and customers.
What is the long term plan for data acquisition?
1. Use existing websites for training data
2. Replace search traffic with AI prompts, thereby destroying the economic incentive for websites to publish data
3. ?
Step 3 is "train on synthetic data generated by previous AI models" - creating an inevitable quality death spiral as each generation trains on increasingly derivative content.
Knowing that your content is unlikely to be seen by many humans, and is mainly just feeding an AI is pretty discouraging. AI is great at detecting patterns, if content creations is discouraged, and more AI content is generated, AI content is likely to become so homogeneous that the internet becomes more of an echo chamber (than it already is).
Not any AI tho.
I have replaced SEO with Perplexity AI only. It isn't a chatbot but it actually search for what you are looking for and most importantly, it shows all the sources it used.
Depending on the question I can get anywhere from 10 to 40 sources. No other AI service provides that, they use the data from their training model only which in my experience, is full of errors, incomplete, cannot answer or altogether.
Google's AI overviews gives you sources. The sources don't always say what Google AI thinks it says. Or, Google will mix up two sources that are talking about totally different things, assume they're the same thing, and then show you nonsense generated from the mix.
I don't immediately assume that Perplexity will be any better off. Citing sources is great, but I'd rather just read the sources myself rather than assuming that the AI did anywhere a good job of actually summarizing them properly. At that point, what does the AI actually usefully bring to the table?
Almost all other AI do that as well. ChatGPT will show you like 10+ sources, it'll put it next to the part of the answer that the source was used for too.
Huh? All of the other AI service provide that. Geminii, Claude, GPT.
Why could i perform a web search that leads me to multiple results with cloudflare identity checks and ad spam when i can just use a llm..
I think it's a google problem. The AI summary is often times wrong so I don't bother. But the pages are garbage as well, so normal users won't click on that looking for information. Dark forest and all that. Pages started to optimize for Google and not humans. Humans don't visit anymore. Duh
Yep, I can't remember when was the last time I've visited a SEO optimized site but I still had the bitter taste that I felt when I last visited it:
- searches for "How to do XYZ" and click one of the site
- "what is xyz"
- "why xyz matters"
- "preparations before xyz"
- "what you might encounter when xyz"
Sounds reasonable and in theory should be useful, but the actual useful info are only stuffed in 1-2 lines of multi paragraphs on tons of sections that I don't care about.
What current incentive is left for people to publish on the internet?
Discovery mechanisms are less effective than before, people no longer visit your website, copyright is dead and in the end we're just feeding an insatiable machine with slave labour. Or am I missing something ?
What was the initial incentive for people to publish on the internet before ad revenue was a thing?
Information sharing with other humans, not corporations.
Likely with some expectation of receiving attribution for your effort, even if only sometimes.
The incentive was often creating a community around a shared interest. Good luck doing that with AI summaries stopping people from visiting the sites.
To be fair, Google's actual search couldn't be much worse than it was lately. It's like they really try to get all the spam, clickbait and scams right at the top.
The AI overview sucks but it can't really be a lot worse than that :)
I have a lot of confidence that Google will figure out a way to do it.
The same economic incentives that led to SEO slop are still there in my opinion.
More "content" equals more opportunity to integrate ads even if they are not woven into the AI response directly. It will be tuned to allow and all that changes is cutting out the website provider.
Google is incapable/unwilling to do anything beyond flooding the world with ads. They don't have a great track record of actually selling things to people for money.
I've written a bit about this issue as well, coming from someone working at a company that partially relies on organic search results. It's been interesting (And slightly worrying) to see the shift and layoffs happening here already.
https://sasjakoning.com/blog/how-google-s-new-ai-overview-is...
I have to say that the comments here do offer a great alternative perspective as to how terrible the web has been to navigate before AI Overviews became a thing.
I feel like there should be two modes - search and answer. It's helpful to get an AI summarize answer like 90% of the time. But the other 10%, I am searching for something specific.
I use Perplexity's Comet browser part-time now. I feel like what makes me annoyed about AI overview summaries is that sometimes I really just need to get the actual site itself and not a summary. For example, I needed to find EC2 pricing information and Perplexity's default search gave me a summary answer. I was looking for Vantage.sh's instance info site.
And thank God! It does. I’m done dealing with bazillion shitty websites with bad, slow, performance, bad ui and dark patterns. All I need is an information in a convenient format and that is what AI tools provide to me.
What's interesting is that:
0. Internet is initially pretty good.
1. Google introduces search algorithm that is pretty good.
2. SEO becomes a thing because of Google, and makes the web bad.
3. AI (including Google's AI) bypasses that.
4. The web is eradicated, and Google/other AI companies are the only place where you can get information...
Seems like the web would have been better off without Google.
You are forgetting:
0.5 User 1,563,018 puts their credit card details in to make the world’s first online transaction!
0.50001 The web is filled with spam and unsearchable for real information
0.9 Some smart nerds figure out an algorithm to find the signal in the noise
1.9 Google throws out “don’t be evil” because search is cost, ad’s are money
4.1 Google and the rest of the AI/s subvert human decision making in ways that marketers could only ever dream
∞.∞ Humans toil in slavery to the whims of our corporate overlords
I wanted a different dystopia.
All you need is good information and AI tools are giving you information without you knowing whether or not it is any good. You may think it is good, but unless you know more about the answer to your query than what you needed to create it you won't be able to tell the difference. If you did then you would not have been asking in the first place. Effectively you are now believing in an oracle.
Which is different from believing the information on an ad and dark pattern infected website how?
Since the AI is trained on the data on the websites below the AI summary, the summary quality is basically lock step with the quality of the websites.
It is different because the AI is 'Google' branded and not 'ad and dark pattern infected website' branded. That proximity to Google's branding conveys trust, but it just whitewashes the content from that ad and dark pattern infected website. Only now you don't know about it.
Okay, but when those sites go out of business, where does the AI get its information from? This is obviously not sustainable.
It's only the advertising-funded sites that go out of business and a lot of those sites were in any case just scraping other sites. What proportion of reliable online information is only available from a web site that is funded by advertising? It's not zero, but it's not a very big number, either, I suspect, so it might be sustainable.
But that also kills the good sites.
Only if those “good sites” were dependent on advertisements for survival.
How many of the "good sites" do you pay for regularly? 99.9% of ALL sites are ad-funded, good or bad. Most people, even people with the disposable income, don't pay for the good sites, esp. because their value is only fractions of a cent from that one google search a month.
My irrational hope is that the "good" sites establish a shared Spotify-esque model, where I pay a basic subscription that then gets distributed roughly by usage to all the websites. There is no chance in hell anyone is willing to have the 20 subscriptions to support all the websites they've gotten utility from (directly OR indirectly) this month.
Some do
I hope the small web will thrive again once the profit incentive for putting content on the web ceases to exist so SEO/dark-pattern heavy players will give up and stop suppressing valuable (altruistic?) stuff.
For the most part there really is no need to use search in the traditional sense for knowledge. For information it’s still the only because llms are not reliable. But ChatGPT must have taken a huge dent in google’s traffic.
> Google users are less likely to click on a link when they encounter search pages with AI summaries
Well, doh:
"Do I just read the AI summary? Or click past five pages of ads and spam to maybe find an organic link to something real?"
I find this claim massivy exaggerated.
I pay 20$/mo for chatGPT. I find searching through websites for information feels very outdated. I have some websites I specifically visit (e.g. aggregators like HN, journalism like WSJ), but if I want information I am going to have chatGPT present it to me in a manner tailored to my specific investigation. I do still google things when I want to find a particular thing, such as a product link, but for general information I am going to use an LLM.
This means searches are still happening, just being routed elsewhere?
I noticed Google's new AI summary let's me click on a link in the summary and the links are posted to the right.
Those clicks are available, might not be discovered yet, curious though if those show up anywhere as data.
Google being able to create summaries off actual web search results will be an interesting take compared to other models trying to get the same done without similar search results at their disposal.
The new search engine could be google doing the search and compiling the results for us how we do manually.
> Google being able to create summaries off actual web search results will be an interesting take compared to other models trying to get the same done without similar search results at their disposal.
And may get them in some anti-trust trouble once publishers start fighting back, similar to AMP, or their thing with Genius and song lyrics. Turns out site owners don't like when Google takes their content and displays it to users without forcing said users to click through to the actual website.
Definitely a possibility.
They have decades of data to map queries to pages. They also have access to crawl the pages in advance.
We (Geostar.ai) work with many brands and companies that have experienced near-death situations caused by Google's AI Overviews. The negative impact this feature has had on people's livelihoods is heartbreaking to witness.
Just today, I met with a small business owner who showed me that AIO is warning users that his business is a scam, based on bogus evidence (some unrelated brands). It's a new level of bullshit. There's not much these businesses can do other than playing the new GEO game if they want to get traffic from Google.
Who knows if Google will even present any search results other than AIO a few years from now.
I think this will be the end of Google as a search engine. I don't see how website owners don't start charging bots for scraping their content.
It's definitely the beginning of the end of Google Search IMO. Extremely small sample size, but me and many people I know have started running the majority of searches that end in a question mark (actual questions) in an LLM, and not Google's LLM. Google is only used as a sort of phone book - when I need to look up the URL of a site by inputting the name, or when I want to find a particular article I previously read. I would say my usage of Google has reduced by about 75% (seat-of-the-pants estimate). It's just better to do it this way, and I have to imagine that this sentiment will spread.
Google will have to survive on other products, like YouTube. I see a massive contraction of their employee base in the not-so-distant future. Low-return products that are subsidized by the massive revenue of search will likely be cut as well if they can't be monetized more effectively (which will ruin them).
See: "Introducing pay per crawl: Enabling content owners to charge AI crawlers for access"
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-pay-per-crawl/
I love Cloudflare, and they're very wise to spin up this service. I wonder how well it will work.
> So more people could be walking away from a search with the wrong information.
I'd actually be very interested in some real research about this. My impression is that in general, SEO-optimized sites are (intentionally) so bad at transmitting information that the difference between an average person "doing their own research" on these sites vs reading the AI overview would either be negligible, or in favor of the AI summaries.
As I understand it they are saying users waste significantly less time on search if there are AI overviews. Is it really bad? Not from users perspective.
As one of the creators whose entire business relied on website clicks for long-form, high-quality content, which is now being amalgamated into AI slop, I can confirm that search clicks are WAY down. I write a free bi-weekly newsletter/blog, which has been the primary lead gen for my consulting business. No particular effort at SEO, but up until 6 months ago, I was highly ranked on many terms. Now, my newsletter signups and leads are almost at a standstill.
I feel like the discussion here is missing the point. It doesn't matter if the AI overview is correct or not, it doesn't matter if you can turn it off or not. People are using it instead of visiting actual websites. Google has copied the entire World Wide Web into their LLM and now people not using the web anymore! We have bemoaned the fact that Facebook and Twitter replaced most of the web for most people, but now it's not even those, it's a single LLM owned and controlled by a single corporation.
Is there an appreciable difference between a company that controls what information is surfaced via pagerank and one that does so via LLM?
Remember the past scandals with google up/downranking various things? This isn't a new problem. Wrt how the average person gets information google doesn't really have more control because people aren't clicking through as much.
The main difference is that pagerank still rewarded content creators with an audience. Now Google extracts all the value of their work.
People only click from search when they have actual need to visit the site. E-commerce, image/video content, social media, etc.
That is pretty much as it should be.
This! Why would I go and read 2000 words optimized article for SEO when I can get the answer in one line?
I only go to a website to perform an action as you said.
AI Overviews are great for users but brutal for publishers. Studies show sites lose roughly 40–50% of clicks when these summaries appear. It feels like another step toward Google keeping users on the SERP, instead of sending traffic out.
If this sticks, creators will either need to optimize for being included in the AI answer or focus more on direct channels (newsletters, communities) to survive.
If searchers (people, I assume) are not clicking on content links like they used to, it's safe to assume that they are not clicking on ad links as well. Google is digging their own grave here. That being said, given the zeitgeist, they really have no choice but to offer AI summaries at least on par with the competition.
This situation makes sense since everyone wants quick answers, and AI summaries are really convenient. A lot of people just read the summary without clicking through to the original content. But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic. Does anyone have ideas on how to balance both user needs and support for creators?
> But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic.
Wait.. why would that creator be paid for the traffic if I'm not buying any shitty overpriced product advertised on these scammy ads, ever? Especially when I don't even see these thanks to ublock.
I just wonder
if AI will destroy the internet... what it will use to train the next generation on? If people go to AI instead of reddit and stack overflow, what will they train the next models on? They have used reddit extensively to train the first GPT models.
I guess that's "tomorrow's problem" though
> if AI will destroy the internet... what it will use to train the next generation on?
Spying on you when you're fixing your carburetor and then making a how-to guide for other people.
I find I read the AI summary then realise I prefer and trust ChatGPT’s answer more so copy my query into that and go from there. Having below average “chat” suggestions in a non-chat interface with loads of SERP cruft feels pointless.
Maybe the future is "LLMO" instead of SEO, where pages are optimized to be more easily readable and navigable by LLMs and agents. Ironically this would make them better IMO, less Javascript bloat, faster load times, no cookies or tracking...
This is not the future. It's already a thing. The content_marketing subreddit has been talking about this for months: https://www.reddit.com/r/content_marketing/
There isn't a clever new acronym for it yet, but I'm sure it's coming. Right now people are just calling it LLM SEO. I assume the discipline will someday be shortened to AIO or similar.
Here's a relevant post from 22 days ago with some good methodology and results: https://www.reddit.com/r/content_marketing/comments/1lq04yd/...
Here's one from 2 months ago with methodology of findings and action items for executing LLM SEO: https://www.reddit.com/r/content_marketing/comments/1kzafm9/...
Nice! Thanks for the sources
The AI overview doesn't (for me) cause a big drop in clicking on sites.
But AI as a product most certainly does! I was trying to figure out why a certain AWS tool stopped working, and Gemini figured it out for me. In the past I would have browsed multiple forums to figure out it.
I'm going to call good old "supply & demand" at this.
There was a demand for information, and people made websites to make that information easily accessible. The market was working.
Then cheap/free hosting combined with Google Ads came along incentivized the market to SPAM the internet with SEO-optimized websites which makes that information just as inaccessible as the market could possibly tolerate. Basically the market converged on enshittification, rather than excellence.
The result of that was that users were forced to search, the first SEO spam, then the second, then the third and maybe somewhere along the line they found what they were really looking for, from a real website. The market just barely supplied what there was a demand for.
But thanks to AI and LLMs, the power has now shifted back to the users, and we can sidestep all the Google Ads SEO SPAM enshittification nonsense. If this is done via ChatGpt, DDG Chat or Google AI overviews, I don't really care.
Once again we have gained easy access to information without any ill-incentivized middle men making the process cumbersome. This is absolutely a good thing. If this means the death of Google Ads funded content farms, I'm all for it.
The niche sites which contains real information was never funded or driven by Google Ads in the first place, so hopefully they won't buckle under during this minor AI apocalypse.
I find this rather worrying, because the summaries I look at are frequently wrong or misleading.
Over the last years I've moved over a lot of initial search to Wikipedia, which either answers directly or provides useful links.
It is time to bring back the search index.
I believe there is a place for a new but totally different “pagerank”. Perhaps one where “likely to be human made” scoring is the central metric.
And figure out how to keep crawlers away.
Tool websites and game websites should not have such a big impact
Working as designed :) enjoy the upcoming informational dark age
It's unfortunate, but websites now make content for AI. We used to use a browser, to view a site, to gain information. Now we use an AI, to tell us the information.
This is most definitely because AI is first thing on the top. If it was the last one, the situation would be much different. Nice tactic to further hype AI.
Pay per click model Should die , it’s really ugly world where you need to fight through loads of ads to get tiny bit of information.
People will go to museums to see how complicated pre-ai era was
Yep, there’s so much hate for people who don’t read past the headline, but if you actually click on the articles the websites are almost unusable.
I don't like having both AI overview and search results in the same page. I am looking for either one and not both usually...
At what point does this remove the 'platform provider' defense for wrong or defamatory information generated by Google & Co?
I thought the search clicks was a massive driver of data for the search engine. How is this not a bad thing for the search engine company?
I've seen blatantly wrong stuff in that overview too many times, I just ignore it now.
To be fair, the actual results are often even worse. I'm pretty sure we're close to the point where our favorite AI prompt replaces classic googling. While it will get a lot of the answer wrong, it will lead to the right result faster than plain searches. If nothing else, because refining our search at the AI prompt will be way easier than in classic google. Google knows and needs to stay on top of this paradigm change, but I guess doesn't know how to monetize AI search yet so it doesn't want to force the change (yet).
Sometimes search results don't contain the info you need, sometimes they are SEO-spam, or a major topic adjacent to what you need to know about floods the results.
But they're not often confidently wrong like AI summaries are.
Ai used in this way is going to replace gui as we know it. Why click when you can just tell ai what you want to to do.
Because I usually don’t want to talk to computers in front of other people? It isn’t that it feels silly, but that it’s incredibly distracting for everyone to hear every interaction you have with a computer. This is true even at home.
Maybe we can type the commands, but that is also quite slow compared with tapping/clicking/scrolling etc.
I recently typo'd something and the AI box just fabricated a semi-plausible story about how the ancient X did Y.
I am not sure how everyone is ignoring that or just getting along with it. I've had it return that the earth population is 10bn which is blatantly wrong and infuriating. It hallucinates harder than regular LLMs which are already bad for getting reliable answers.
The web is dying.
My question here is: why would Google try to actively sabotage, possibly even devastate the very backbone cash cow that is all those spammy, SEO-laden search and ad results right below its own AI overview, that's displacing them for engine users who don't bother with the rest (I thing I personally avoid because fuck you hallucinating AI overview)
Anyone have any ideas?
EDIT: Also, the irony of Google, which for years harped on and on about working to fight incorrect, erroneous and also even "misinformation-laden" search results, now making a hallucinating AI that often makes up outright bullshit with authority as its primary, first-line result for information. Truly a company that bathes in an ever deeper pool of shit the bigger it grows.
I use a user agent switcher extension to tell Google I am browsing with Lynx to remove some of the annoyances.
The AI overview is wrong in most of the time when I check the referenced links. It's even worse than ads.
I installed a plugin that removes them, most of the time the answers it gives are complete dogwater
Some HNers said AI overviews sucked and they would never use them, and here it is.
AI overviews are search. It's the next iteration of how web searching works.
(forgot what type of flour you need for bread in supermarket)
innocently googles 'flour bread'
half the screen, CONTINUE WITH GOOGLE - stay in browser, click
COOKIES We and our 917 partners CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY, click, click,
NEWSLETTER, NEWSLETTER, click, rotate screen because the overlay is to big, click Im sad person who's doesn't want daily bread in his mailbox.
APP APP APP, install APP, click click, can't hit the x, let it be
LOG IN WITH YOUR FOOFLE ACCOUNT, click
5 pages with autoplay video and SEO slop
I'm enjoying AI, while it lasts.
This is all nice while the AI overview has no ads in it. Wait until it gets enshittified, and I have a feeling AI overview would be so infested with ads that people would rather block it and proceed to reading the actual links.
All this said, I am guilty of using this a lot these days - while it is still ad-free. I just ask chatgpt.com to give me a recipe of "XYZ" and it gives it immediately without any annoying repetitive content.
Several factors are at play here, which are somewhat contradictive:
1. Publishers feel entitled to traffic, because Google send them traffic in recent years. See [1] for example:
> "Google's core search engine service is misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss," the document said.
> "Publishers using Google Search do not have the option to opt out from their material being ingested for Google's AI large language model training and/or from being crawled for summaries, without losing their ability to appear in Google's general search results page," the complaint said.
I have zero pity for these publishers.
2. Not all traffic is created equal. Does a business really lose customers, just because traffic goes down? Maybe that traffic wouldn't have converted anyways. This is basically the old piracy discussion revamped with businesses arguing that every single copy of a movie or a game would've been a customer. It's idiotic.
3. But: Google is now a content provider and different rules apply for those than being merely on a comparable level like an ISP. This has been discussed for years with social networks in minds. Hence, Google needs to be held accountable for providing harmful information (such as in another story here: the temperature for heating pork and when food safety is affected).
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overview...
if you can get answer in 1 step, why 2?
things like "gemini said" and "gpt said" will enter common lingo like "google it" did in the 2010s
My Google feed (the one that shows up on some Android phones) is 90% articles that could be answered in the headline: "This one ingredient improves the taste of your potato salad." Of course you have to click through and read, read, read till you find it.
It's why things like /r/savedyouaclick exist.
no reason not to block Googlebot now...
Good. About time search dies
I type -ai every time
I've got years of professional SEO experience, and it's clear SEO is dead for information, especially once you use o3 type Ai models daily.
To be frank, good riddance. Information sites were being manipulated on such levels it was ridiculous.
Anyways, I expect e-commerce CTR to get SO MUCH better, so overall it'll just be a shift away from SEO over to PPC, or maybe a little bit of both.
More and more it seems the internet is headed to the outcome seen in “Altered Carbon”: populated by AI almost exclusively, full of slop, invisible by the humans that created it originally. An abandoned outpost on a long line of things humans have abandoned.
Warms my heart. Clicking ad-infested bullshit articles and wasting many minutes trying to find the line where the answer lies was the worst internet experience of the last decade. I am glad crappy ad-blogging is dying.
But hey, I'm sure Google's quarterly earnings are doing just fine
They were fine, though.
If you're tired of this BS can I encourage you to make:
https://noai.duckduckgo.com/
Your default search engine. AI overviews begone.
The enshitification of search engines is driving me more and more to LLMs for all their warts. I can usually force them to provide sources and do my search that way.
Well, yeah.
AI systems still struggle with hallucination, especially when your intent of the query is to obtain the latest information. These models have become very good at handling stored information, but their ability to stay updated remains slow. There is a large volume of queries whose responses and underlying concepts don't change much, and the current AI systems, through innovation and user-friendly interfaces, has managed to cast a wide net over such pre-learned responses.
However, unless these AI base model businesses create strong enough incentives for information owners to provide updates and engage in information pipelines that provide fresh data, the current moat of AI might not extend far enough to cover the full spectrum of queries.
The “fossil fuel” of LLMs-static public internet data-is running out.
Current efforts in RL help systems answer queries beyond their pre-learned knowledge by expanding on the user’s prompt, wherein the system ventures into unknown data territories through agents and self-talk, resulting in action-result memories. These, in turn, serve as a large enough context-rich prompt to have all the needles-in-hay-stack that form the final answer or response. This is made possible by large context windows.
For live internet queries, RL can work by expanding context with latest results fetched from the public web using a crawler. However, this is often done without the explicit consent from information providers and offers them little incentive beyond a link in the AI’s response summary. As a result, some providers have started withholding data, and many services now offer tools to block AI crawlers. Meanwhile, multimodal AI systems-capable of understanding text, visuals, and audio-are developing agents that can access content through simulated browser use, effectively bypassing traditional crawler firewalls.
This reality highlights the need for a good incentive system for information providers, one that encourages them to share dense, efficiently and ai-structured data. Certain domains have already begun embracing this and sharing their information in ai-native formats, since they have no moat in that information and rather see positive incentives - for example, certain documentation websites for tools and frameworks now provide formatted versions of their docs at /LLMs.txt links.
If the information is the resource exchanged on these internet pathways, businesses fundamentally operate either by generating this resource or by retrieving it once it exists, and the other businesses enable this whole endeavour. Ultimately, individuals and organizations will, seek, share and exchange information in ways that enables them to efficiently take decisions and their next actions. Therefore, the incentive to access the most up-to-date information becomes critical when those actions depend on accuracy and timeliness.
Hard to take a publication seriously when its content is editorialized to this degree. Even the title is trying to impose itself onto the reader.
First they came for the stackoverflow comments, and I said nothing, for stackoverflow is notorious for being full of jerks.
Then they came for the search engine clicks, and I said nothing, because monetised search contributed heavily to the enshittification of the internet.
Great so far. Can AI kill off social media and internet surveillance next?
Who will provide the training data for AI when Google has stolen everyone's audience and revenue?
It saves so much time looking at slop websites like arstechnica. Those kinds of websites are already made up content anyway, so there’s no real difference in the factual content.
In other news, water makes things wet