ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
56% Positive
Analyzed from 3003 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#google#search#results#more#ads#links#problem#llms#seo#used
Discussion (74 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
How did Cantor come up with his diagonal proof? It seems to have been dreamed out of nowhere
Why are there advertisements for a shampoo containing caffeine? Does caffeine do something useful other than when you drink it?
What happens in sense and sensibility?
All of them give a decent answer, with the ability to ask follow ups. Eg, how does S&S compare with Pride and Prejudice? What about more recent novels connecting romantic choices with economic choices?
All of them give you links to source material, in case you suspect they are just making it up.
At the start of the millennium, Google search changed everything about how I look for information. Now it seems outdated.
But seems like they won? Why know how to search when you can simply ask your question. You can even tyipe it layke dat and it would still work.
I would argue this was always a bit silly, and mostly due to UI shortcomings of search platforms. The fact you needed to add "magic" params to shape the results speaks volumes. Any UI that fundamentally tries to reshape how you are expect to interact, or impose certain "behavior" is wrong. This is also why we are using touch instead of a stylus.
AI won because they took the paradigm of presenting a new way of doing something in a familiar way. An LLM works very similarly how you would ask a knowledgeable friend, and google worked similarly how an engineer would query a database.
Must be fairly easy as a company to inject your specific topic there, e.g. "Nutris(c) is proven to be better than caffeine for haircare"
I wonder how well a company could establish something like Danone's health-claim for Activia [1] in an AI without ever being clearly accountable for it...
[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260218-i-hacked-chatgpt...
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2010/12/...
I don't remember actually reading the article, so I have no idea how serious that was, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't being studied actively by all major countries already. And that may be one of the core reasons for the China vs US AI competition.
Or, you know, buy their way to the top of a search engine's results.
Advertising killed search.
I don't really like LLMs or AI assisted tools, but I think they are really good for "explain this configuration, tell me what it does, and link to the documentation". Then read the AI summary, verify with the actual docs and go from there. It's almost always the easier path to understanding, for me at least.
The advertiser can buy logit "boosts" to specific tokens in a given context (the more preceding context, the cheaper). Once an activation has happened, dont do it again for the session.
The LLM will end up pushing a specific product contextual to the conversation. It just needs this slight nudge at the logit level to start talking about it and will fill in the rest.
I found that I can't really trust this knowledge becuase I skipped the source and didn't conclude it myself. Like how I can learn anything when being spoon fed with conclusions and summaries without accessing the source?
I'm willing to bet that approximately 0% of users know when to suspect it being made up and then check the sources.
(And here I thought "Alice in Wonderland" was a Disney film—who knew it was a book first?)
If you follow these a good portion do not contain the claims that the AI output links to. This is obviously a hard problem since actual AI "knowledge" lies deep in the weights somewhere.
Google search did the same and more than once the link didn’t contain what I searched for
I never asked them to waste additional resources by injecting my blunt keyword-query into an AI-cluster and guesstimate a well-formed article from that.
But here I am, with (elder) relatives sending me Google search-results on topics like they are proper articles...
For quick reference, sometimes it’s pretty good! The problem is that obviously you can’t dedicate a lot of compute or additional tools for checking those answers so most of it can’t really be trusted.
And yet they is not how it is used, and is trusted beyond sanity.
The sometimes convenience comes alongside ejecting society from the previous system of figuring out what is true and false.
That was a system that was already failing, but we may have gotten on top of. Now we have one that is simply alien and inimical to any human scale solutions to staying ahead of it.
Generation capacity simply outstrips verification capacity, and with search summaries taking over links to the actual sites, the funding/incentives to run sites and publish content is removed.
The curtain call of the era of the open internet, and the opening act of the LLM mediated web, isn’t a show I am excited to have front row seats to.
Wow, I thought you were going to talk about selling ads and how that has made search shite.
The pre-AI enshitification-part where they realized that worse search-results means more searches so more ad-revenue is another story.
If they wouldn't have done that, they could be the proof that a well-maintained search-engine is still better than a LLM.
But now this will never happen, as no-one will be willing to give up that additional search revenue while overall usage is going down...
They, themselves, sorta proved that a good product could become dominant with ads and without being shite.
Beautiful. I shall consider suffixing every random observation I have or action I take with that, for an extra infusion of ominosity and importance.
Back in the day everyone had essentially the same Google, and there was no concept of paying to get better search results. But now the average family is going to rely on the ad-ridden ChatGPT Free tier which is more likely to be wrong, less in depth, with additional commercial incentives. It’s only a minority of adults now that pays for frontier models, and how many are letting their children have access?
You can see this divide right now with medical advice for instance. If you have access to ChatGPT 6 Pro (only available for the $100/month tier I think), it will research Pubmed etc and give you a careful measured answer that likely reflects the latest medical consensus, while a casual user relying on Google AI might be told to eat toilet paper to relieve constipation: https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1wmbn87/a_pt_show...
or in the case of gemini, if it even looked at all...
(Is it dead yet?)
For the time being, AI seems to be doing a much better job in most cases, so as we say: So long Google!
Mind you much of the existence of Google has been this kind of unstable arms race, from the early days of the ad-free home page to introducing pagerank as the first attempt against linkspam SEO.
- they mainly look at the first Google result and sometimes if it looks "not convincing" the next few. Especially on a phone where the screen space will cut out most results without scrolling.
- a lot of them write (partial) questions instead of "search queries"
- the first result is an AI response which is very good at being "convincing looking" even if it's plain wrong. (And the others they might look at are nearly guaranteed bought.)
soooo
I don't think much changes for most people.
Sure Google Search AI response links some sources (but not many and it's not that rare for them to not really be sources for the _full_ answer...).
But so do (some) AI agents.
Through the naivety with which I see people trusting AI is very scary.
This makes me wonder if following statement:
> Of 139 studies on the effect of AI on critical thinking, 67 reported only positive effects of AI use.
is a side effect of the studies using sub-par methodology or if I have some observation bias.
Like the problem is many people filer trust by "who they ask", "if the question is hard", "if people might have a reason to lie". But the problem is AI works so differently that you can't trust it in _any_ question, even causal questions where (close to) no westerner(^1) would consider lying to you and everyone would either know they don't know or have the right answer...
(^1): Some cultures for "politeness" reasons value "giving a answer" over "saying I don't know", especially if the person won't see you again. That is getting much better AFIK in such cultures but can be a problem when e.g. asking for the way...
One of the more horrifying stories to read was about [Code Yellow back in 2019.](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-2019-code-yellow-blurr...) Google's algorithms were getting too good. Users were finding what they wanted too fast. They'd type in their query, the first result was good, then the user would close the tab. For Google, this meant less ad revenue. They wanted users to stay on Google for longer. *So they chose to degrade the algorithm quality.* Users would have to click multiple links to find the information they wanted, and inside every link was ads served by Google. This is one of the pivotal moments in one of the worst cases of enshitification in software history.
My coworkers use Google and often quote back the AI summary me instead of checking the source and referring to that. It's scary seeing even those with higher education behave like this.
I attempted to google this a few years ago to no avail.
It was garbage before LLMs got good, and the deep thinking models leapfrog whatever it used to be in its heydey.
"you should not google, you should use a web directory, you will get exposed to a more diverse set of sites, not just what google pre-digested for you"
"you should not google, you should go to a library and search in physical media instead, google is for lazy people who can't think for themselves"
Then it was Wikipedia. Since anyone could update it, anything on Wikipedia was suspect.
Now even though Claude seems smarter than any person I interact with on a daily basis, it is all suspect.
Then there is the opposite with arxiv. Anything on arxiv is not just true but has authority in an argument, automatically. Everything besides papers on reproducibility. Those are basically ignored.
Epistemology is not our strong point.
Children probably use more critical thinking in the playground and interacting with other children than in class, because classwork is mostly slop anyway.
LLMs are not going to one shot answers in Minecraft through the chat UI. Possibly a more effective resource than checkbox activities at teaching "critical thinking" (abused term in education).
The reason I started those conversations was specifically around when children are learning critical thinking skills. When we broke down exactly what types of exercises teach those skills, it surprised me to find that it starts way earlier than it used to. It is now a late elementary school topic, when it used to be high school.
That doesn't mean that slop isn't creeping into the classroom - it is. But what to do about it is a completely different conversation when it is pushed down from on top vs. assuming teachers are choosing it.
I agree that districts do have a lot of pressure on teachers to keep pushing up test scores which leads them to being gamed either by teachers or children no matter the tools available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law