According to a Google translation of the German court ruling,
Are you fucking kidding me now?
AI is mostly garbage
Google improves their search results, then they won’t need AI to do the searching?
Google gains from people spending longer doing their search because that means they spend more time seing adverts.
This would explain why Google actually made search results WORSE in the last couple of years - it meant people would spend longer in the Google search page, browsing results longer and doing more searches to try and find what they wanted.
It also explains why even that was now replaced by an advanced, natural language chat bot - if people are essentially chatting through their searches, they will stay there even longer.
Too bad for them there are alternatives, and Google, which was my default, got so shit that I switched. I use Duck Duck Go now, which is still much worse than things used to be, but at least I can easily opt out of AI junk easily.
Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it.
😳what the fuck
purely delusional/schizophrenic speech.
I’d hate to see the overviews and the AI summaries disappear. There’s no way I or any other human can read 100 websites in a few seconds the way the computer can.
In theory a summary is a good idea, in practice Google’s is catastrophically wrong often enough to produce news like this, and can trivially be shown to be wrong in other cases. It stands to reason that it’s likely also often wrong in ways that we don’t notice, which makes me not want to rely on it.
One of the big problems with pre-AI Overviews was the highly SEO optimized website that received an A+ in website ranking but barely a C- or D in website content. Lots of buzzwords, but no substance. There were lots of those kinds of sites, particularly after the approximate time period of 2010, give or take a few years. Countless times I’d find (maybe) what I was looking for on page 2 or 3 of search results. The newer AI Overviews, and the ability to engage with the AI, is invaluable to me. AI answers are definitely not right 100% of the time, but neither were folks and corporations writing their websites. Even highly peer-reviewed science is wrong some of the time.
What I think is happening here, besides any legal arguments of defamation, is that corporations are unhappy that their websites are not getting as much traffic as they used to get.
Not just corporations, but yeah, the irritating thing for anybody with a website is that people are purely getting their answers from these summary overviews and closing the window, and that doesn’t count as actually visiting the website these “answers” are coming from.
I’ll admit they’ve been somewhat helpful a few times, and I’ve even been impressed when they’ve dug up a particularly deep detail that like one buried site mentioned, but on the flipside is the whole “idiot parrot” problem, where it’ll confidently tell you things that are completely wrong.
Companies are also seeding Reddit with “opinions” about their products so that Google’s LLMs pick up on it and start spitting that bias out to the users… because of course they are.
But yeah, essentially Google is killing traffic to the web, while monetizing everybody else’s hard work. (Without permission, to the surprise of nobody.)
The summary feature can be helpful, but I hate seeing all these tech giants siloing power and attention to their stupid megasites. The web is hardly “browsable” anymore, unless you’re really digging into sub-networks where the humans are hiding…
the summary are largely hodgepodge of different websites that may come from blogs, or whatever opinions it finds. often it uses REDDIT as a source.
So, you are saying you cant process the same ammount of information you were processing 4 years ago?
Why do i need to read 100 websites in a few seconds? I search what i want, skim through a few site, then determine if i have the info i wanted and whether i need to grab more context, that’s it. AI might give you an answer but without context surrounding that answer it mean shit. What if i want something basic? Wikipedia. Definition of words? Tons of dictionary website.
Your brain will only grow and maintain the braincell if you use it.
Are you like 14-18 years old? I’m asking, because I can’t imagine someone that actually used Google before the AI crap fixation would ever say this.
Google’s search has gotten SIGNIFICANTLY worse since AI has plagued the internet. Even before they added the AI overview garbage it got worse just from the internet itself being flooded with AI generated content. Even if it “went back” to its search pre 2020 it would still be awful because the entire Internet is just filled with slop now.
AI “search” is not bringing you better information. It’s giving you the illusion that it’s better because it’s convenient and requires little effort on your part. But the information it’s giving you not reliable.
You can test it. Think of a topic YOU know a lot about and have a chat with an LLM for a bit. Pretend you don’t know anything about the topic in the conversation. If you have expertise in any topic you’ll quickly learn how awful it is. How much it makes mistakes or simplifies something to the point of it being useless.
You just think it’s smart because you’re only ever asking it things you don’t already know. It’s making you feel like you’re getting answers from an expert; when in reality you’re getting a toddler’s level of intelligence displayed in a nicely formatted summary.
The LLMs are even worse than just making mistakes. Usually when a person makes a mistake they aren’t incredibly confident in their statement. An LLM will say something with language that imitates confidence, which makes people believe it actually knows stuff. However, if you tell it it’s wrong, even if it actually is right, it will also almost always agree with you. It’s as accurate as rubbing a crystal ball. You may get something out of it, but it’s always going to reflect back your beliefs.
Are you like 14-18 years old?
I’d guess I’m probably 5 decades older than you.
Edit: For your future information, if you want to disagree with someone, that’s fine. But when you start out with a personal attack, then I know all I need to know about the quality of discussion or disagreement that can be had with the likes of your argumentative style. While I’d love to engage you on your other points, the personal attack you started with precludes it. My life is much better without you in it.
Asking your age is not a personal attack mate. A 14-18 year old would understand that I’m asking about age because they likely didn’t start using Google before its results turned to slop. They wouldn’t feel “attacked”.
There are plenty of 14-18 year olds that can understand what I said in my comment. You, apparently, could not so you focused your response on “feeling attacked”. Grow up. If you’re really 85 than you should probably stop acting like a child.
being 70+yo is even worst argument, they are often more iternet illerate than teens, the fact that you dont see 100+websites in a summary and its not fact check is a problem.
Then you should know that even Veronica and Archie were better than any AI search, as at least the results were concrete and existing, and not just made up to sound believable.
The computer can’t read it. It hallucinates back to you, and is only right sometimes. That’s how these LLMs work. There’s nothing “intelligent” about them.
Hard to tell when you possess no intelligence of your own.
deleted by creator
Try taking longer than a few seconds.
