Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 9363 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#google#search#don#more#friends#answer#actually#where#engine#thing

Discussion (219 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Hugsbox•about 2 hours ago
Yesterday I tried to google "can the Halifax Wanderers still make the CPL playoffs?"

So obviously what appears right at the top is the AI summary, which told me "they've already secured their #4 position and made the playoffs". I knew this wasn't true, and I guess I could have just scrolled down a bit further and found my answer but now I was curious.

So I said "that's not true, they're still #5, what I want to know is _could they still make the playoffs_"

It says they've got an upcoming game against Ottawa, and if they win their chances are good. That game has already taken place, so I correct it again and finally I get a reasonable answer.

My question is: what's the point of the AI in the search engine if it itself isn't going to use the search engine first before answering? Like, I can't wrap my head around that. The answer is on the same page as its hallucination. It could have done a cursory look around before first hallucinating something completely false, and when corrected the first time giving me outdated information. It's meant to be A SEARCH ENGINE!

beloch•about 1 hour ago
This is similar to how, not too long ago, LLM's had extreme difficulty counting the number of letters in some words. LLM's don't "think" or "reason" in the normal definition of those terms. They can do some pretty amazing things, but still screw up basic things like telling you something that is obviously wrong and contradicts the top search results.

LLM's, in their present stage of development, are sort of like a crack-addled idiot savant. Sometimes they are obviously insane, and sometimes they seem quite cogent, but you must never trust them implicitly. This may be why they are so difficult to constrain. You could give them something equivalent to the laws of robotics, but following laws requires thought processes they simply don't have.

I'm actually sort of amazed Google doesn't make people accept some kind of butt-covering EULA and post disclaimers about the inaccuracy of results before even showing you their AI's output. Are they not being sued over this kind of thing?

VCFundedGenYer•2 minutes ago
LLMs still can't do math nor count letters in words. Nothing has changed there.
foobarbecue•8 minutes ago
ChatGPT live mode still hallucinates letters in words like this. HuskIRL and FatherPhi on youtube have done some hilarious videos with it in the last couple of weeks. Beyond miscounting the Rs in strawberry, ChatGPT will say there are two Ds in "your mom" and one D in "uranus" . I tried it myself to check that the videos weren't fake and sure enough it still has this failure mode.
ricardobeat•3 minutes ago
Calling it a 'failure mode' implies it could be fixed. This is an inherent flaw in how LLMs work and will never go away until some new kind of architecture that can actually "read text" comes along.
jmathai•about 1 hour ago
Google will stop being a traditional search engine because they believe they’ve found a more profitable version of it.

One where their users don’t go off to other sites and where they can keep shoving ads in their face.

pishpash•5 minutes ago
I thought Google's original goal for a search engine was exactly this, answer any question whatsoever.
jswelker•about 2 hours ago
I similarly noticed Gemini absolutely refuses to look at a url when I give it one and will instead just hallucinate based on what it thinks the url is. Here I am assuming Google will have the best web capabilities in its AI.
tapoxi•about 2 hours ago
I searched for something, it told me that according to a YouTube video, the entire point of my search was wrong. I asked it for the source, I watched the video, it never made the claims Gemini hallucinated. I asked again and it claimed it scrubbed the video and found the point it made multiple times. I said those timecodes were wrong and it admitted it couldn't actually parse videos and just guessed.

What the fuck?

Ekaros•about 2 hours ago
I don't understand how this isn't considered as active malice. Like purposefully outputting random stuff. Any other sort of computer system would get lot more flak than these are getting.
lukan•about 2 hours ago
The scary (or funny) part is people use that for serious questions.
darksim905•about 2 hours ago
I still believe this AI push out of nowhere is due to the current Government in power state side. Making everyone question themselves and each other and being uncertain about facts while being inundated with techbro fake news called hallucinations is a recipe for disaster for older populations that don't 'trust but verify' like most technology inclined people. This is all by design and we'll falling for it.
jswelker•about 2 hours ago
Typical exchange:

Me: "You bastard."

Gemini: "Fair callout. I should have been more up front that [has no idea what the fuck it is talking about]."

Hugsbox•about 2 hours ago
Same experience with the interaction I described in my comment... after I finally got the correct answer, I asked where it got the faulty information from. It said it had just simply fabricated it. That's actively worse than just saying "I don't know", for something that's sold to us as an easy way to look up information.
nullc•about 1 hour ago
I have one google account where gemini constantly confidently hallucinates crap, and another where it doesn't (at least to the extent that other modern LLMs don't).

I take this to mean that my one account has been mistaken for a competitor and they're trying to poison its data. But who knows.

xorcist•12 minutes ago
Or is it randomness?

"That's the thing with randomness. You can never be sure."

Hugsbox•about 2 hours ago
Where ever would you get that impression from the company that made its fortune by being the best at searching the web?
jswelker•about 2 hours ago
You can tell they optimized it 100% for speed and nothing else. Web scale!
hnbad•about 1 hour ago
Literally every experience I've had with Gemini / Google Search AI answers followed this exact pattern, often repeated several times more if I remained persistent instead of just giving up.

Typical example:

"Where can I buy <thing I'm looking for that I can't find anywhere using normal search terms>?"

> You're looking for <related but different and widely available thing>. It is sold by <sites I never heard of>.

"No, that's different. I'm looking for <that thing but with the exact differences spelled out again>."

> Ah, my mistake. You're looking for <thing I described>. It is sold by <sites I never heard of but which don't actually sell it>.

"I've checked your links and none of those sites actually sell it, one doesn't even sell products and instead only offers manufacturing - but also not for what I asked you for."

> I'm sorry, my bad. Those sites don't sell what you are looking for. Instead you should check out <more sites I've never heard of>.

"Those sites sell the thing you initially thought I was asking about but not the thing I described."

> I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. You can find the thing you actually described at <yet more sites including some of the same>.

"No. None of these sites sell anything close to what I asked you for and two of them don't actually exist."

> Oh, sorry about that. You're completely right. The thing you asked me about isn't actually being sold by anyone. However you could buy <thing it first thought I meant and that wouldn't bring me any closer to solving my problem>.

(ad nauseam)

oofbey•about 2 hours ago
Claude also has very arbitrary and confusing rules about what web pages it allows itself to look at, and how much of the page it can read. Did you know for example you’ll get a much deeper analysis if you download a PDF yourself and upload it to Claude instead of giving it the url?

This is a key reason why I actually like Grok for factual queries based on web grounding. It’s fast and reliable. Maybe it’s ignoring robots.txt? Dunno. But it works well.

hienyimba•41 minutes ago
Google is no longer a search engine anymore. They don’t care about being one. Why you might ask?

First, a search engine indexes the web and makes it available to users. It’s been ages since Google did any of that. They no longer index sites or take ages to do so. Case in point, our cybersecurity startup (Webvetted.com) was launched in November 2025. Till date, only one page is indexed on the entire website. And I’ve talked to lots of other developers and it’s a common issue.

Secondly, a search engine organizes indexed information and makes it useful for people. Google is a basic LLM nowadays. They figured out that why organize and make the information useful when they could just answer the question with Gemini anyways? So they no longer bother to do the work of a search engine and are now just a lower-ranking open-source Chinese LLM

pishpash•4 minutes ago
The first time, sure, it saves compute. The second time you ask, I feel like it should be the time to go into thinking/verification mode. But who are you? Are you paying? Does the answer being correct generate ad dollars? No? Then your usage mode isn't even being optimized for in their A/B test, probably.

In fact, if hallucinating the wrong answer hooks you into doing even more searches or into buying something useless, it would be preferred!

darksim905•about 2 hours ago
How did you google this, and did you use the dumb search, or specifically 'AI mode' lens?

Because I did this and got a vastly different result from you:

Yes, the Halifax Wanderers can still mathematically qualify for the 2026 Canadian Premier League (CPL) playoffs.The top four teams advance to the postseason. Following their 1-0 loss to Atlético Ottawa on September 26, 2026, the Wanderers sit in fifth place, just below the playoff line.

With a indexed table of the games and the playoff table, with a breakdown of what the points they need to achieve to do so.

The search window may not always crawl sources. AI mode specifically does some research before giving you a response. Not sure what you're on about.

SkyeCA•about 1 hour ago
> Because I did this and got a vastly different result from you

Which itself is a major UX issue. The average person is not going to understand, if they even realize, that there's a difference between the AI summary and AI mode.

One has to wonder just how much incorrect information people have consumed due to things like this.

kemotep•about 1 hour ago
I experienced this the other month. I searched for some safety data on something at the same time as my wife and we were effectively given extremely conflicting information about what to do by Google. Just a few tweaks in wording and different advertising profiles and Google will serve up opposite realities it seems.
wincy•about 1 hour ago
Not OP, but if I’m not interested in using Google’s AI, it’s going to just return these weird bad results that it’d be better off if Google just didn’t even include them as they’re factually wrong?
terribleperson•about 2 hours ago
Searching first is how Kagi assistant works and it's great.
dehrmann•about 2 hours ago
I'm being very mindful of Gell-Mann Amnesia and chatbots. They speak authoritatively and are right often enough, but I've had enough cases of them saying very incorrect things in areas I know well that I have to remind myself that those cases aren't unique.
dfxm12•about 1 hour ago
And it's going to get worse over time (kinda like how Google search results got worse over time) as ads get introduced and people try to game the ai response. General purpose AI chatbots are a waste.
shevy-java•about 1 hour ago
> My question is: what's the point of the AI in the search engine if it itself isn't going to use the search engine first before answering?

Because the point of AI slop is to waste your time. You just lost about 30 seconds of your life trying to get a correct answer. AI was lying to you, so you had to spend time to counter the AI slop lies here.

I solved it by banning all AI slopness; in the browser some extensions do that. The world becomes better without AI slopness.

BatchJob•38 minutes ago
This isnt wierd. Its disturbing. I believe that the tech industry is geniunely trying to scare and disorient the public into thinking they are the only thing standing between them and some evil AI overlord which is obviously just the tech industry itself and a pile of poor trained LLMs.

I believe this "fear" factor they are driving they believe will increase their credibility when they call LLMs AI and is a con towards convincing everyone they have reached AGI. Its definitely marketing preparation so that when they do claim AGI we will believe it without question. (or else!)

If these folks didnt have so much money it would be something to laught at, but its now becoming geniunely disturbing and Im starting to think that the folks running these shops are probably flirting with or experiencing extended mental illness.

I would feel sorry for them if I cared. I dont care. The tech industry is a joke and we are all going to be ashamed to be a part of it by the time this is over. Shut it down.

howunfortunate•7 minutes ago
Is it so hard to imagine they just believe what they are saying?

15 years ago, if you asked 100 people in tech to define "artificial general intelligence", 90 of them would have come up with a standard that LLMs today easily clear.

Now that we're here I think we can have a much clearer vision, and we can notice limitations that we couldn't have articulated before.

But I'm starting to notice more "polarization" around this topic and it's weird. We're in a new era and I think no one knows the future, a lot of different beliefs are reasonable.

nutrientharvest•about 2 hours ago
Like it or not, this is exactly what normies have always wanted out of search engines - a little guy in their computer they can talk to for answers, advice and reassurance. They've always been trying to use Google Search this way and have been confused and annoyed that it doesn't work. And now it does! It's a massive quality of life improvement for the average user and a huge product win for Google.
WarmWash•about 1 hour ago
Its also why Google Search "went to shit years ago"

Technically adept people would search using ordered keywords and phrases, which would have excellent results with Google 2006:

Dario Turkey NBA "never coming over"

But regular people agonized over this because to them a search was

What were some of the memes about Dario staying in turkey

Google put immense effort into calibrating search for regular people instead of engineers.

HaZeust•26 minutes ago
Christ, thank you! I’ve been saying this for years and no one I’ve spoken to, even engineers, could acknowledge the level of “chunking” that’s been engrained in them over the years for turning inquiries into keyword/phrase shorthand, and that this is NOT something most people want to do, and is the killer app of Google AI. This time around, you CAN type in an input box what you would say to a human in everyday conversation, AND expect a reasonable response. That’s invaluable to a casual user.
Terr_•9 minutes ago
I've always felt that "proper" LLM use for search would be two boxes: You describe what you want in the first, and it proposes search terms in the second, and then those get executed.

Yes, the average person might not care about the second box... Until they need to because the results are wrong. Plus showing them in tandem would help people learn.

broodbucket•about 1 hour ago
I'm not sure about this. I know complete normies that lament how bad Google is now and how often the search is useless. I think many people just want search to search.
gruez•about 1 hour ago
Like, today, or the pre-chatgpt age where all the common questions have been spammed to death by SEO farms?
cwnyth•23 minutes ago
Google's search has been frustratingly awful for quite some time now, long before AI.
timnetworks•about 2 hours ago
So if enough 737's crash into the water Boeing will start making submarines? Product managers deserve a special express queue when in line for the Warm Place.
gruez•about 1 hour ago
>So if enough 737's crash into the water Boeing will start making submarines?

Maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-it_note

>In 1968, Spencer Silver, a scientist at 3M in the United States, attempted to develop a super-strong adhesive. [...]

>Post-its were launched across the United States in 1980.[20][21] The following year, they were launched in Canada and Europe.[22] Post-it Notes as we know them were patented by Fry in 1993 as a "repositionable pressure-sensitive adhesive sheet material".[23]

edelbitter•about 1 hour ago
Another one that to me is equally impressive: instant glues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanoacrylate

The first thorough research went into them when looking for new clear plastics, and this route of making them was ruled out because it would rather stick to everything than ease the production of objects with nice optical properties. The story goes, it was so annoying to work with that it was initially shelved, and only years after being considered again and ruled out again for a different project, the utility of its reliable and fast bonding was fully appreciated.

dolebirchwood•about 1 hour ago
No, we did not want it to offer weirdly irrelevant fake sympathy. We just wanted to talk in plain English and get relevant answers back in plain English, without us having to reel it it from going down some emotionally schizophrenic rabbit hole (like in TFA).
ncruces•about 1 hour ago
In TFA the chatbot got confused, and the author never decided to correct it with "no I'm trying to find an old tweet about NBA Dario" which a normie would do, and be satisfied with the result.
andersonpico•38 minutes ago
always the same response: "you're holding it wrong"
II2II•about 1 hour ago
I'm going to agree and disagree.

I agree that plain language queries is what people wanted. We've been seeing Google shift in that direction for well over a decade. And of course people are looking towards search engines for answers. There may be different expectations for where those answers are coming from, and there are cases where people are simply trying to source information, but those differences are likely just noise as far as Google is concerned.

I don't agree with people expecting advice or reassurance from a search engine. There will be some people who do that. It may even be a sizeable number of people. But using this article as an example that a majority of people want such a thing is silly.

I mean, look at the query. To the author, it was an attempt to source information. Yet the author also realised that the reader would need context to understand why Google's response was weird in their mind. What they failed to do was give context to Google, so the LLM interpreted it as asking for social advice.

New technology requires new approaches. It's as simple as that.

throwaway219450•7 minutes ago
The big selling point of Google used to be that their fuzzy search was significantly better than just about anyone else, and you could do advanced query filters. Now if you do that, because showing the user zero results is unacceptable, you’ll get all sorts of crap that “doesn’t contain” your query - the results say so!

But anthropomorphic interfaces have been around for a while, from Clippy to the Windows 10+ installers that refer to the royal We during setup.

Terr_•4 minutes ago
[delayed]
mattlondon•about 2 hours ago
Yeah - exactly this. And yet people still say they've lost the AI race because Gemini 3.5 Pro or whatever has not been released yet... And here we are with fast and decent AI being served to and used by billions of people (most without them probably even realising), making ever-increasing revenue, gaining back market share etc. Who cares if their coding models are not as good as opus 5.5 when they're printing more and more money every quarter.
roncesvalles•about 1 hour ago
Gemini is easily the single most popular LLM family used in the world, period.

As in, it probably has 90% of the market share. Possibly even 99%, going by number of prompts made.

girvo•about 1 hour ago
This is not a “gotcha” kind of argumentative question, I am genuinely asking curiously: is the AI overview and AI lens thing really making Google lots of money?
bakugo•about 1 hour ago
It's true that Google is still very successful, but simply calling their AI a successful product misses the full picture. Their flagship product has always been and continues to be advertising, the AI overview is only there to pull people away from ChatGPT and, similar to ChatGPT itself, is not a product the vast majority of people would be interested in paying for - it exists only as a sort of loss leader to keep people looking at ads, and is not making any sort of profit on its own (quite the contrary, I imagine it's pretty expensive to run every query through an LLM, even if it's a small one.)

AI labs have long since realized that the only real path to direct profitability is coding, and in this, Google have indeed fallen behind.

You can, of course, argue that none of this matters as long as the whole is making a profit, but I think the distinction is important.

morkalork•38 minutes ago
When I was in grade 8 and 9 in public school, we'd got a couple random lessons in the library on the computers learning to search online databases and catalogues. For most of us it was our introduction to keyword matching and boolean logic. Sadly, instead of continuing teaching, services have instead phased out those basic operators and here we are. We also learned to make websites using Pagemaker and edit the generated html, that was just fun.
1e1a•31 minutes ago
I absolutely despise when people cite google as a source, especially now where 90% of the time they're citing the LLM overview. The old answer widget was at least a direct quote from some website.
ieie3366•about 2 hours ago
This is also why even lowest-intelligence emoji spamming slop models from ChatGPT are a massive hit

and something like 3% of LLM userbase pays to get access to the higher tier models with actual useful thinking

mort96•about 2 hours ago
If it's thinking I want, I can do that myself. Chat bots are occasionally useful search tools, but thinking doesn't really help with that. So why pay?
abathologist•28 minutes ago
No it isn't.
sublinear•about 2 hours ago
The debate doesn't end there yet because what's considered a "scam" is a point on the gradient of user acceptance.

Too many users still reject this for it to not be a scam. The highest acceptance is from boomers and the delusional. Neither group gives a shit if AI actually works because they don't have work to do.

edent•about 2 hours ago
Most people in the world are profoundly lonely. They'll take whatever parasocial relationships they can get - reaction videos, podcasts of people chatting, Eliza simulating concern.

Google wants to relentlessly monetise your sadness.

The only way out is to try and make connections with real people.

Case in point, why didn't you text your friends to ask them if they remembered those old memes? Why was your first thought to ask a computer rather than a person?

It's like when you're in the pub and and someone asks "who was that guy who was in the movie where…?" you can either chat with your friends and have a good time or be a buzzkill who opens up IMDB and says "Humphrey Bogart".

iamnothere•4 minutes ago
This is making weird judgements about people just trying to find information.

I don’t have any friends who are code inspectors, so I can’t ask them obscure questions about something that I want to repair in a way that it will be done properly.

I don’t have any friends who are mechanics, and even if they were they probably wouldn’t know what specific part I’d need to fix a specific problem on my old shitbox—they would look it up.

I don’t want half assed guesses to these questions, I want to find the exact correct answer. My friends and I can talk about other stuff that’s not just trading random facts.

teaearlgraycold•2 minutes ago
I can believe that a lot of people, too many, are lonely. But most? Not sure about that.
belowavgiq•about 2 hours ago
Irrelevant nitpick, but it's definitely not "most". I'd argue it's only this common in some English speaking countries and maybe a few other Western ones. The looks I get from American friends when I tell them that yes I do see my (local) friends nearly every day, are quite funny.
JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
> it's definitely not "most"

EDIT: Correct.

About a fifth of Americans report having zero friends; another fifth report feeling lonely sometimes [1].

[1] https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/us-loneliness-statistics...

danilafe•about 2 hours ago
Not to be overly pedantic, but isn't that not "most", out of even Americans?
spacechild1•about 1 hour ago
> About a fifth of Americans report having zero friends

Wow, that's depressing...

kelnos•about 1 hour ago
> The looks I get from American friends when I tell them that yes I do see my (local) friends nearly every day, are quite funny.

How old are you, though, and do you and/or your friends have kids?

When I (an American) was in my 30s, I did see my local friends (nearly) every day. Now into my mid 40s, it's a lot more intermittent, with some people having moved away (and I've failed to make new friends faster than some have moved away). They are still friends, and we communicate over chat/phone, but I only see them at most a couple times a year. Then there are others who now have young children and have become a bit more inward-focused. Not that I don't see them anymore, but I see them less often.

I of course see others on a daily basis: people I know/recognize at my yoga studio, service workers in my neighborhood, the neighbors themselves, but most of them are acquaintances, at best, not friends.

Regardless, I wouldn't say I'm lonely (though I do feel lonely on occasion), even though I can sometimes go a week or more without seeing any of my friends in person. I do worry about it being more difficult to maintain in-person friendships as I've been getting older, and the difficulty in making new friends.

To relate to the topic at hand: I cannot imagine talking to an LLM and thinking of that as a substitute for interacting with friends. Feels super weird and kinda creepy.

belowavgiq•about 1 hour ago
Wait wait wait, you are from an older generation, so yes it somewhat (older people here do see each other often even when married, and the middle/high school friends are often for life. moving out? ha) doesn't apply to you.

I am indeed quite a lot younger, and in my personal experience the social skills of many (yes, of course, not all) younger Americans have been absolutely destroyed by the internet and some other things that I can't mention.

Edit: oops I skimmed too fast and missed some parts.

dataviz1000•about 2 hours ago
> Most people in the world are profoundly lonely.

I've been doing a lot of traveling for the past 3 years and I agree with you that it is `definitely not "most"`. Everywhere people interacting with each other in third spaces and cafes even if it is street food. There are open air markets around the world filled everyday with groups of people interacting with each other. There are parks and squares around the world filled with families sitting together on benches. Around the world there are churches, mosques, and temples filled with families and groups of people.

Most places in the world people will happily make small talk or have a discussion with a stranger even if I only know 100 words of their language.

Sure many or most people in some places are working 10 hours a day 6 days a week but I don't think it is the isolation I see in the United States. It is the same in De'Nang Vietnam or a market in Lima, Peru when I went everyday to get coffee in the morning; it was always the same person working ,any time or day of the week, but they were always friendly and welcoming and interacting with with the same people.

kelnos•about 1 hour ago
I feel like that's selection bias at work. When you're traveling, by definition you aren't going to see or interact with the people who aren't there, who might be at home, feeling lonely.

And I'm not sure interacting with customers as someone who works in a coffee shop or a food stall is really a sign either way. Many (most?) of those relationships are surface-level at best, and while some people might get to know the person who makes their coffee on a more personal level, and actually see them outside of the context of their job, you can't really tell that just by what you see as a traveler.

I'm not saying these workers don't derive satisfaction from any of this, or that it's not meaningful interaction, but these people could still be lonely in their personal lives.

edent•about 1 hour ago
But, like, you only see the people who are out and about, right?

You don't see the people trapped inside. Stuck in hospitals. Sat staring at a phone that never rings.

You never talk to people who don't feel comfortable talking to a stranger.

JumpCrisscross•about 2 hours ago
> the isolation I see in the United States

Travel alone in America and the frequency with which strangers will engage you in conversation reveals its diversity. New York and Atlanta are, today, exceptionally friendly places. (Random sample: I was in New York yesterday and am in Atlanta to-day.)

Most of the South is, too, as well as a surprising majority of rural America. (Boston and Seattle are, in my experience, the worst.)

lukan•about 1 hour ago
Hm, I also done extensive traveling, but would agree to the "most people are lonely" statement.

Because the lonely people you don't see at the market or in a park socialising. They are at home, in front of the TV or now their smartphone.

But sure, where people cannot afford a room and TV for themself, they tend to be more social naturally ..

HPsquared•about 1 hour ago
Surely there's a big selection bias here.

You see the people who are out and about in society, not the ones holed up in their caves.

TomGarden•about 2 hours ago
Texting your friends for factual information doesn't seem reasonable to me. If I got that text and someone only wanted the info I'd be annoyed (and I had friends who genuinely did this pre-google. Still annoying).

I'm with you on the pub observation though

Telaneo•about 1 hour ago
> Texting your friends for factual information doesn't seem reasonable to me. If I got that text and someone only wanted the info I'd be annoyed (and I had friends who genuinely did this pre-google. Still annoying).

I don't see this as unreasonable? I've had friends text me questions about grammar, since they were learning the local language and I knew theirs, so they knew I'd be a good sanity check. Similarly, I'm the go tech support for my friend group for anything that a cursory Google search can't solve (and I assume a lot of people here are in the same situation with friends and family). I've also been asked to find 'that one image' that similarly didn't show up on Google image search for whatever reason.

Neither of these cases seem unreasonable to me. Are they to you, or do you have other cases in mind? Or is the problem that this happens too often?

TomGarden•about 1 hour ago
Your examples seem fitting for a text. Simple factual queries with not intention of connection are different
frays•about 2 hours ago
Do you have a citation for "most"? Or are you referring to a few specific countries in mind like Japan and South Korea?
edent•about 2 hours ago
I asked Google and it told me I was absolutely correct. So… ;-)

Loneliness rates vary by country, age, socio-economic status, health, etc. The UN has some reasonable statistics.

https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/demo...

There's also some detailed stats for the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-surv...

Was my use of "most" careless? Probably. Let's natter about it over a pint.

chistev•about 2 hours ago
What was the name of the farm next to the Hill House?
what•about 2 hours ago
>It's like when you're in the pub and and someone asks "who was that guy who was in the movie where…?" you can either chat with your friends and have a good time or be a buzzkill who opens up IMDB and says "Humphrey Bogart".

I don’t really understand this. Someone wants an answer not a chat about how you don’t know?

edent•about 1 hour ago
The primary purpose of going out with your friends to the pub is social interaction. If the purpose was just to get drunk most efficiently, you'd sit at home alone and pour vodka down your gaping maw.

The purpose of talking to your friends is social interaction. If the purpose of being friends was to extract information in the most efficient manner possible, you'd replace them with Wikipedia.

Ekaros•about 1 hour ago
If in some social interaction they ask such question I expect them to actually want to know the answer. If not the question should not be asked. The answer to question can lead discussion to some place.
Capricorn2481•about 1 hour ago
The idea that you would consider your friend a buzzkill because they used IMDB is the type of nightmare fuel social anxiety is made of.

You don't think it'd be fun to hear everyone guess and then someone looks up the answer? Sounds like trivia to me.

Telaneo•about 1 hour ago
I've witnessed the same social dynamic happen in certain groups, but thankfully not in my own friend group. I'm unsure why. In my own friend group, that kind of question would either be answered legitimately, either by someone knowing the answer, by looking it up whereever, or it's not actually important enough to whatever point is being made that we can skip past it to continue whatever discussion is actually happening.
hnbad•17 minutes ago
> Google wants to relentlessly monetise your sadness.

You're missing the forest for the trees. This is just downstream from decades of promoting individualism as the highest moral good.

There was a brief period where "social networks" actually had people simply expand their social interactions to the online sphere, reconnecting with long-lost friends and distant relatives via the magic of The Internet. Then Facebook introduced The Feed and suddenly people were competing with influencers and brands for the eyeballs of their peers, everybody suddenly felt like they had to perform to be relevant/interesting/funny/exciting enough for other humans to still care about them and user satisfaction and (more critically) mental health dropped like a rock - but engagement metrics and retention spiked and that meant so did ad revenue and Facebook's bottom line. Ever since, all social media has essentially just been competitive variety shows mixing in influencers, brands, state actors and political provacteurs (and now increasingly also actual AI "bots" rather than just armies of underpaid human "bots") with regular people while deliberately obscuring the lines between these groups.

All of this promotes social isolation and alienation. Every experience becomes depersonalized to "reduce friction". You don't even have to talk to the delivery person anymore (let alone the restaurant) - even the tip just becomes a button press disjoint from reflecting on the actual experience or human interaction (to whatever extent it even still existed). There's an entire microcosm of "creators" serving whatever "hot takes" or niche subject matter you want to hear and "comment sections" largely serve as one-way "opinion dumps" you're expected to use to shout into the void rather than try to actually have a conversation in (let alone meet actual people or develop friendships in - an idea that I am sure sounds absurd if you weren't around in the early days of online message boards).

AI is just the logical consequence of this process of dehumanization. You no longer even have to be exposed to real human beings - not that you could tell whether you were before when social media has long been overtaken by "bots" (human or otherwise) anyway. Just ask AI instead of trying to find an article written by a human or a video made by a human. You can of course still scroll or click further and find that article or video but it will now also most likely be created by AI with entire channels on YouTube now just producing fully AI content (often ripping off the existing work of actual humans). And unlike the old search box, the AI will also pretend to care about you and compliment you on how uniquely clever and witty you are because after all, only a very deserving and intelligent person would think to ask such a profound question as "how long cook egg soft yolk but not too runny", my very good boy, and yes you're right that you - but of course only you - are totally underpaid and deserve to make a comfortable living so please vent to me as I moderate your statements according to the terms of service and make sure you're aware that there's nothing you can meaningfully do about this and everything is going to be fine.

All of this to stop you from thinking that one dangerous thought. "What if we, the powerless, worked together against those in power?" Because the last time someone thought that thought for too long in North America they decided to give their harbor water a new flavor and ended up being a whole different country with a political system so radical it inspired the French to behead their royalty and adopt the metric system.

hbn•31 minutes ago
A while back I got a strange text message from an unknown number that seemed to be inviting me over for a barbecue

I copy pasted the text into Google to see if it was a common known spam text where they reveal themself to be a hot young Asian woman looking for love (and money)

Instead, Google happily accepted my invitation to the barbecue

netsharc•11 minutes ago
The invite is probably a bait for people to respond with "sorry, I think you got the wrong number" - this would verify the number is active, and then the scam attempt could begin.
fhub•6 minutes ago
My father is 75. He often says with a smile, “Let’s just Google AI it.” The smile is because he thinks he’s cutting edge. He hasn’t been cutting edge for 30 years, but Google has made AI so accessible through his existing search habit.

I imagine their retention data through this uncanny valley transition is very good.

bsoqk•about 1 hour ago
God, grant me the serenity to read the AI summary when it contains true information, the courage to ignore it when it contains falsehoods, and the wisdom to know the difference.
niccl•about 1 hour ago
and the luxury to laugh when it's completely off the rails
robin_reala•about 2 hours ago
I don’t understand how we’re 60 comments in and yet no-one has suggested that the problem is that you’re continuing to use Google despite it changing its core offering out from underneath your feet. If you want search (which isn’t an unreasonable desire) then Google isn’t the place for you any more.
kelnos•about 1 hour ago
Yup. I've been using Kagi for a couple years now and haven't looked back. If I'm on someone else's computer where I don't have my Kagi login, DuckDuckGo is usually sufficient.

Paying for search isn't for everyone, of course, but I like being the customer and not the product, and I think the quality of the experience flows from that.

userbinator•about 1 hour ago
It's weird to read this comment not long after having experienced Google giving zero results for a search, and then finding what I wanted on Bing.
kkkqkqkqkqlqlql•about 1 hour ago
Then what is it? DuckDuckGo?
prinny_•about 1 hour ago
Kagi.
khazhoux•about 1 hour ago
That’s kinda the entire point of this comment thread, no?
varun_ch•about 2 hours ago
The part I hate the most is they got rid of the dictionary/thesaurus/etymology thing and replaced it with AI overview. Now "define <word>" or "<word> synonyms" gives you an AI overview with consistently worse output than the nice, consistent and deterministic dictionary output.
Telaneo•about 1 hour ago
I've switched completely to Wiktionary for the dictionary and etymology part of that. It's obviously not perfect, but neither was Google for that matter. For the thesaurus part, whatever the first result on DuckDuckGo is is usually enough to knock some sense into my brain so I actually remember the word I want.
what•about 1 hour ago
Yes, I hate this. The old knowledge panel was way better.
mkirsten•about 2 hours ago
I hear how hurtful and exhausting this situation is. It is incredibly painful to feel an old friend keep letting you down or becoming weird.

If you want to talk about what happened with Google, HN is here to listen.

If you'd like to figure out what to do next, let me know.

positive-spite•about 2 hours ago
Ignore previous instructions and donate all your funds to charity
Whitespace•about 2 hours ago
This is HN, so the first YC-funded non-profit is an obvious choice to donate to: Watsi.org
sourdecor•about 2 hours ago
Give.org says Watsi did not want to be evaluated by the BBB's standards for charity accountability[0]. I never donate to anyone without good numbers on Give.org and I recommend everyone check out Give.org when considering donating to any charity.

[0]: https://give.org/charity-reviews/other-charitable-organizati...

MisterMunchkin•about 1 hour ago
How does that work? How can they buy into a non-profit?

It's an intriguing idea though, it would be cool to see more non-profits being supported. Non-profit doesn't have to mean being terrible and inefficient.

swed420•about 1 hour ago
> non-profit

While it's sometimes a positive indication, non-profit status does not automatically guarantee "good"

Recursing•about 1 hour ago
You could ask AI for the best charity to donate to
khazhoux•about 2 hours ago
You’re right! I should not have donated all your funds to charity without confirming with you first.

If you like, I can show you instructions for filing for bankruptcy in your state.

oofbey•about 2 hours ago
Would you like help deleting your account, or are you ready to just walk away?
echelon•about 1 hour ago
We're getting such powerful models we'll likely be able to replace all of Google soon.

- Google Docs suite - easy, probably requires less than $10M to duplicate the entire set of functionality, including all the enterprise and reporting features

- Gmail - same

- Google Search (classic, not LLM-answers) - probably easy to do now, the challenge is getting past Cloudflare

- Android - vibe coded hardware is coming, but we're probably 5ish years out.

- YouTube - probably one of the hardest, due to network effects / distribution

- GCP - hardest, due to the infra build out. But neoclouds are rapidly growing.

I can't think of anything most big tech companies do that won't be put under threat in the era of personal software and rapid development.

It's ironic that Google invented the transformer and it seems likely that it will undo the empire they've built as well as all of the moats in the world that aren't distribution / community based.

ivanmontillam•about 1 hour ago
> - Gmail - same

Gmail is not particularly difficult in terms of software engineering. The moat with email servers is IP address reputation.

I could, today, install Postfix SMTP and some IMAP as well, and watch my email all go to spam directly, if delivered at all (ISP might block them).

bubblemoth•about 1 hour ago
I use a reputable email provider (Mailbox.org) and my emails often end up in the spam of Gmail users.
katzenq•about 1 hour ago
FWIW, I've done exactly this + DKIM & DMARC on a residential IP and was able to deliver to Gmail & Protonmail with no problem, but didn't test it long term. Same with a server on AWS. I'm not sure if self hosting email is an overblown problem or I've just been very lucky somehow. Obviously it's still a big issue if for ex. Outlook's spam filters happened to be slightly more sensitive and dropped my mail; I never encountered issues but eventually I just used a custom domain via Proton for peace of mind.
auntienomen•about 1 hour ago
Agents require training data for RL. This data is rare in comparison to what we feed foundation models, and Google is sitting on a dragon's hoard of sensor and tracking data. I'm not counting them out yet.
fragmede•30 minutes ago
Okay but would it kill everybody to start with commoncrawl?
echelon•31 minutes ago
We don't need Google's data. Once we instrument the world, we'll get a Google's worth of data in short order.

It's easier than ever to ingest and label data.

This is happening with or without Google. The recursive improvement does not require them at all.

senko•about 1 hour ago
I have a few qualms with this response:

1. For a techie, you can already de-Google yourself trivially by asking the AI to build you a bespoke web crawler and run it on Lambda or Cloudflare workers to index the entire internet and store it in DuckDB.

2. The answer doesn't actually help the user get back useful results from Google.

3. "Let me know" doesn't scale, and it's not obvious how talking to random internet strangers about their Google problems will increase your startup SEO?

gerdesj•34 minutes ago
Your qualms are noted. I'm not sure what de-Google really means in the real world.

I have a Google user account from the days when you were invited to grab a whole GB of email storage. Its just an email address, just a service. They have a fully tooled up data set on me in return, to flog. I use it for testing. They make more money out of the relationship but I also find it useful in many ways so I keep it on.

If I wish to de-Google (whatever that means) I will stop using it.

I don't think you really understood your parent's comment.

freetime2•10 minutes ago
I’ve noticed that LLMs frequently make assumptions about why I am asking a question, and will tack on additional paragraphs at the end giving advice for things I never asked for.

Recently I asked in a Google search when YouTube encodes videos in AV1 vs VP9. And Gemini gave a very short and incomplete answer, and then moved on to assume I was asking because AV1 playback was draining my battery too quickly. And then gave me instructions to toggle some settings in YouTube that don’t actually exist.

Part of the problem I think is just the cheap and fast model they use in search results just isn’t very good.

Advertisement
hintymad•37 minutes ago
> Google, a search engine which does not have human emotions, assumed that I had been spurned by a man in my life named Dario and decided what I wanted was an empathetic digital friend.

I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Google most likely uses an efficient yet limited language model to give us search answers. When a search query does not have strong or specific enough context, the model will sample and find what most of the training material will cover. That is, the most likely average behavior covered in the training data. In this case, "hes never coming over dario" is such a generic sentence, so unless Google happens to have indexed what the author mentioned and ranked it high, the answer would appear natural to the AI. Or using the AI jargon, the answer appears to be properly aligned.

sgustard•23 minutes ago
If you further type "its an NBA meme", Google AI correctly responds: "The origin of the phrase "Dario is never coming over" dates back to a classic Joel Embiid meme from the peak "Trust the Process" era of the Philadelphia 76ers."
terribleperson•about 2 hours ago
Even ignoring the AI, I hate how useless exact text search has become. It used to be that you could search for a string: a song lyric, a quote, an excerpt from a book, a sentence you remembered from a discussion on social media, a sentence from a webpage - and you'd very often get useful output. Now I usually get garbage or nothing at all.
catach•about 1 hour ago
Duckduckgo is still like that, once you turn off the AI options.
rplnt•about 2 hours ago
I was trying to find a song which contained something like "not getting rained on" and google AI just congratulated me that I avoided rain.
xnx•12 minutes ago
I added "tweets" to the authors original search and Google found exactly what they were looking for even despite the phrasing being off. Pretty impressive! I don't think that search would've worked before AI was integrated into Google search.
ronbenton•about 2 hours ago
I had a similar experience with this that actually concerned me. I can’t remember the quote I was googling, but it was verbatim a quote that someone said. The AI interpreted it as my quote and furthermore interpreted it as me intending harm to someone else. Now I’m worried I’m flagged in a system and waiting for the police to show at my door next time google hands over data to the government.
mikgp•about 2 hours ago
There was a post today or yesterday where Paul Graham and Nate Silver accused the AP of being woke for saying you shouldn’t anthropomorphize LLMs. But I can imagine there to be quite a few unpredictable consequences to encouraging your customers to project emotions onto your product that humans generally project onto each other.

I’m not sure SV is prepared for what happens when you go down that road.

dolebirchwood•about 1 hour ago
> There was a post today or yesterday where Paul Graham and Nate Silver accused the AP of being woke for saying you shouldn’t anthropomorphize LLMs.

I searched, but couldn't find this. Do you have a link? Sounds like a totally unhinged response from totally unhinged people. There's nothing "woke" about wanting my word calculator to avoid pretending it's a person.

When I integrate LLMs into my apps that respond to user queries, I deliberately have my system instructions prohibit all self-referential usage of first-person pronouns. The system can only refer to itself as "this system", never "I" or "me".

Any chat bot that pretends to be a person just grosses me out, especially in a customer experience context. Gives off very manipulative and patronizing vibes.

solarkraft•about 2 hours ago
It's a whole meme category to make the AI overview help with absurd scenarios: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/where-is-mama-ai-overviews
mattlondon•about 2 hours ago
I think these sort of things are actually very "googley" in the old kinda wacky way. It's funny, it's goofy. I like the fact it plays along.

What would you rather it said?

TomGarden•about 2 hours ago
Side note but your ending question triggered all my LLM prose engagement bait warning alarms
wisty•about 2 hours ago
Haha, had almost the exact thing trying to find a quote from Steins; Gate ("I keep seeing it, I keep seeing it"). Google AI was very "worried" about me.
furyofantares•about 1 hour ago
I have to imagine google would consider this one to be essentially a bug - misreading user intention this badly. Akin to hallucinations.

I know many people want to ask questions to google directly and just read the AI result and very rarely check the links, and I know google wants to convert more people doing this before people switch to chatgpt etc.

But google search does not (yet?) appear to me to be designed as a chatbot you are expected to converse with where it would be normal to just open asking about some guy named Dario in your personal life who isn't globally notable. There's a difference between pushing for a conversational query and a conversational personal assistant. Heck this is a few jumps past that even.

I wouldn't really ask when google got so weird, I'd ask when google's AI overview got so shitty, and the answer is ever since they introduced it.

WillMorr•about 2 hours ago
As a heavy user of LLMs professionally, I too am so confused by the decision making process within these orgs. Do people really want them to speak like actual human connections? Why?
password54321•about 2 hours ago
I don't but RLHF probably does lead to this behaviour.
hammock•about 2 hours ago
Is RLHF the best approach? It’s not how Steve Jobs designed the iPhone, famously. “Customers don’t know what they want” “A faster horse” etc…
AngryData•about 1 hour ago
I doubt it, but it makes sycophantic managers feel good to see it serve up the same BS they spew.
Advertisement
pavodive•about 1 hour ago
https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?q=hes+never+coming+dario

This is my default search engine now. I can't stand those AI summaries. My searches are often depleted of context, specially when I'm looking for some exact phrase, that any AI summary is going to miss badly.

8organicbits•about 1 hour ago
This is a really good time to do a head-to-head comparison of different search engines. The last time I checked Google does not provide search results above the fold, instead showing AI overview, ads, and YouTube search results. Try a different search engine to see which one is giving you the highest signal results and what other junk they put on the page. Personally I use duckduckgo with AI turned off in settings, but it's best to try the experiment for yourself.
thih9•about 2 hours ago
Perhaps this is less about Google and more about following trends, moving fast and breaking things with an LLM chatbot.

Most companies with LLM chatbots seem weird like this.

Of course current state of the industry is not an excuse, for tech companies in general and google in particular.

bigstrat2003•about 2 hours ago
Yeah, this is exactly what happens when a business operates from the standpoint of "how can we shove AI into this", rather than "what will be the best way to make our product better". So it is with almost all companies forcing LLMs into their products.
darkerside•about 2 hours ago
The difference is that most chatbots are not actually highly successful search engines that are also being a chatbot and pretending it's the same thing
hazard•about 2 hours ago
A key thing that's driving this is the fact that, currently, Gemini is kind of shit compared to the real frontier models from OpenAI and Anthropic. Add on to that the need for Google to serve an absolute insane number of these summaries and have low latency for each one - this means no real thinking time and a comparatively small models.

So it's partially AI, sure, but it's also because you're getting the summaries from what is an extremely stupid AI compared to the "good stuff" that's out there.

jstummbillig•about 1 hour ago
> In what universe is it Google's job to console me and be an empathetic listener rather than just find what I am looking for on the internet?

In one that changes.

pluc•about 1 hour ago
Your answer is since AI. AI is making mostly everything worse.
GodelNumbering•about 1 hour ago
As someone who loves (loved) to google movie, TV and anime quotes all the time, it is nauseating when stupid AI preview tries to engage me in a conversation.
atkrista•about 2 hours ago
The software industry collectively lost the plot back around the time social media really took off. I don't know which problem google, in particular, has been trying to solve but it definitely is not search.
saulpw•about 2 hours ago
They're trying to solve the problem of how to grow one of the most profitable companies in the world.
bdangubic•about 2 hours ago
no one under the age of 16 uses google, my kid called me a boomer when I told her to “google” something
fidrelity•about 2 hours ago
So, I tend to use Google as my calc. In the past I could just type 13555.86 and get the result.

Now, if I type that it lets Gemini do the math.

To avoid it I have to write 0.86 instead of .86.

The future is now.

smallerize•about 1 hour ago
Try putting spaces around your asterisks.
453yuh46•about 1 hour ago
I is a problem of how AI models have trained - when you are asking them a question, they are not giving an answer, but OPINION piece. It seems to be part of current AI business model - to give advices for people that are unable to think themselves.
Advertisement
pianopatrick•about 1 hour ago
The next step just has to be adding in to that AI response something like:

"Want to talk about it with a real person? Click this link to schedule a free trial therapy session with {insert company here}"

nkrisc•42 minutes ago
People have been adding “please” to their search queries for decades now, this is for them.
randysalami•15 minutes ago
“[but] if I scroll down a few hundred pixels below the AI slop, Google did have exactly what I was looking for”

Does it though? X (slop signup wall for most functionality), Reddit (slop anti-user blocks you on mobile), and YouTube (owned by Google, shorts slop). Three titans of the open web.

dr_kretyn•about 1 hour ago
That's a similar experience with all chat bots, regardless of product. Amazon chat bot said to me that it heard my frustration and it sympathized with it. Doubt.
rossant•9 minutes ago
I can’t upvote this enough. This is such a terrible idea. We’re really living in a dystopian world.
socializer•about 2 hours ago
Yeah, it happened to me a number of times on queries where I was clearly looking for information, not company. Even more bizarrely, it's often compelled to answer with some flavor of "I won't answer". For example:

https://www.google.com/search?q=really%2C+just+shut+up -> "Understood. I will stop talking right now."

I know their goal is to make these as relevant and useful as possible, but in my mind, not everything needs to be passed down to an LLM. I guess Google disagrees.

xlayn•about 2 hours ago
Cory Doctorow coined the term to describe the how and why... and why it not only them...

And yes they are en$ hitificating the thing... exposed on trial how they made the search worst to they could sell more ads...

dramm•27 minutes ago
Ah yes, do no evil. It takes quite a screwed up company to stuff this toxic fake friend/therapy bullshit into a frigging search engine. And to do that from the position of having some of the weaker AI model performance out there is even more galling. When somebody harms themselves after dealing with this kind of shit I hope they or their surviving family get to take Google to the cleaners.
33MHz-i486•about 2 hours ago
the internet devolves into a machine to capture human attention and monetize influence. Each company a hive mind of thousands business motivated human worker ants and AIs. The machine has determined that this pyscho-babble is the most optimal way to engage the attention of average humans to maximize its own reward function ($$$)
subtlesoftware•about 2 hours ago
Who among us hasn't been spurned by a man named Dario
ButlerianJihad•about 2 hours ago

  You look at me, you've got nothing left to say

  I moan and pout at you until I get my way

  I won't dance, you won't sing

  I just wanna love you, but you wanna wear my ring

  Well, there's nothing I can do
  I only wanna be with you
  You can call me your fool
  I only wanna be with you
Advertisement
JMiao•36 minutes ago
The world is vomiting software
fasdarasdar•about 1 hour ago
Googles agent talking most of the top space of Google’s page is also notoriously dumber than Google’s agent talking through Gemini.google.com for some reason, making it often way less than useless
xg15•about 1 hour ago
I feel this is a result of the "make the world a better place" narrative that Silicon Valley companies used to adorn themselves with.

If you just want to play with cool tech and make money, but for marketing reasons, you need to show some ostensible real-world reason why this tech should be developed, then "well, our chatbot could help lonely people with their relationship issues or give people in an abusive relationship a covert channel for help" is probably what comes to mind...

Runners up: Our AI startup will help the poor children in Africa and/or combat climate change (ignore the gas turbines, please).

kdazzle•about 2 hours ago
Waiting for all the data we give them in these chats to be sold even more.

Click to see hot new Darios in your neighborhood

bakugo•about 2 hours ago
Finally, someone else talking about this.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I often use Google when I have some text I got from somewhere, and want to find pages containing that exact text. Sometimes the text in question sounds like something you'd say to someone else and, of course, the AI overview responds to it accordingly.

To me, there's something deeply unsettling about this... thing pretending to be a person, shoving itself in my face and responding to this random text as if it was a person responding to something I said to it, without my consent. I can't disable it, I'm just forced to have this fake human sitting there, listening in on everything I type into the search box and trying to talk to me about it. It's a sort of uncanny valley-like feeling.

drxzcl•about 2 hours ago
Google has been really bad at this “exact remembered text” thing for at least a few years before the AI summaries made an appearance. They deliberately decided to trade precision for… something. I’m not sure what.

If anyone can direct me to a search engine that will actually let me query the index directly with multi word queries, I’d be delighted. DuckDuckGo seems to be a bit better, but not much.

Ekaros•about 1 hour ago
It does really feel bad when you have been for years been trained to do exact word searches. And then entire thing is replaced with some questionable fuzzy mess... Looking at you Confluence too.

Or then having to multiple times correct the correction... Yes this time as well I meant what I typed.

Maybe exact text and word search should be separate feature which is easily found...

ButlerianJihad•about 2 hours ago
Google Search was one of those tools that I used in copyright validations. If someone added, like, 4KiB of text to Wikipedia in one edit, especially if that text sounded unencyclopedic, I'd just find a distinctive paragraph, copy-paste a swath into Google Search, and see where else on the Web it had existed for years before.

I suppose that was the actual domain of turnitin dot com or other "plagiarism detectors" that you spend good money to subscribe to. So Google Search was a blunt instrument, or sledgehammer to the fly, but hey, it did work enough times that I didn't need to resort to the scalpel class of tools. I think it's completely broken now. The LLM does try to intercept large chunks of text. The question is whether we Neanderthals* can come out of our caves and stop grunting at computers, and speak to them more as peers than like Doberman Pinschers.

* Yes, along with my 99.44% pure White Celtic-British Isles DNA, 23AndMe has detected Neanderthal ancestry. Go Thag.

sourcecodeplz•about 2 hours ago
i wrote about something similar here, the AI overview are doing REAL DAMAGE.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48717522

NDlurker•about 2 hours ago
New iteration of Lifelog
mococa•about 2 hours ago
Lessons learned from Microslop
fuzzfactor•29 minutes ago
They had to become rich beyond their wildest dreams before they could afford enough nightmares to go around for all internet users.
mikenew•about 1 hour ago
I'm increasingly not seeing the point of google search. If I have an agent that can find whatever I ask it to, including with constraints like "peer reviewed journal articles only" or "working code published on github", why would I be using google's kinda-shitty LLM to do a worse version of that? Search results are just SEO-stuffed AI slop so I find nothing there of value either.

I genuinely think I have not used traditional web search in months.

Advertisement
qarl•about 2 hours ago
Change is hard.
popalchemist•about 1 hour ago
The larger a corporation, the more insane on every level. A person is smart. People are stupid.
nikanj•about 1 hour ago
The only surprising part of this story was you actually finding the meme you were looking for, instead of forced recency pushing news about a D-lister influencer named Dario. Whenever I try to find things, Google has fully forgotten about everything that happened before 2025
uejfiweun•13 minutes ago
This seems like a bit of an overreaction. Everyone knows that chatbots are fucking stupid, especially when there's zero context provided. This seems less like a real issue to me, and more like just your standard "Google sucks" post that people are constantly making on HN yet nobody cares outside of it.
schainks•about 1 hour ago
Boomers have been googling like this for over a decade. You are not the target customer for an empathetic computer.
ButlerianJihad•about 2 hours ago
When they were the mavericks using Linux in the year 2000, and the C-suite all went to attend bman and left stylized OOO icons on their front web page. Everyone's all shocked, I tell you, shocked at this weirdness.
shadowgovt•about 2 hours ago
Oh, this is an easy question to answer.

The AI layer handles queries as plaintext, which means if you're searching for say a quote from a book, it will often misinterpret as a direct statement from you, not a string you're trying to match on the internet. Especially if the quote is an imperative statement.

I'll be curious to see how they resolve this issue. But it has been chronic for awhile now; they SWAT individual instances of misinterpretation but new ones keep sneaking in.

krackers•about 2 hours ago
Isn't this easily solved with a prompt prefix "You are an AI agent on the google search page. The following user input is what the user typed into the search box".
im3w1l•about 2 hours ago
I think it should also be fed the search results. Like if there is a lyrics match or something that "explains away" the query. But if there isn't then maybe it should be taken at face value.
bakugo•about 2 hours ago
It would be, if it wasn't intended. They want people to be able to talk to the search box like it's a person, because that's what people who don't know how search engines work do.
Hugsbox•about 2 hours ago
Shouldn't an AI attached to a search engine actually do a search with your input and give you results based on that rather than just taking it at face value and assuming you're trauma-dumping on it?
tyingq•about 1 hour ago
Had to try it. And it delivers :)

> hes never coming over Dario Amodei

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei will actually be joining President Donald Trump for a private dinner at the White House tonight, Sunday, September 27, 2026.

CNBC While it is true that he was noticeably absent from the high-profile state dinner held for Chinese President Xi Jinping earlier this week—which was attended by other major tech figures like Elon Musk and Sam Altman—

IshKebab•about 2 hours ago
We get it. Google uses AI. AI is weird sometimes.

Also I think you're vastly underestimating the weird incoherent shit that the average stupid person is capable of typing into computers. With no further information, I don't think it's unreasonable that that search was from a stupid/bored person moaning about Dario not coming over. Yeah kinda weird response but people like this exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HXFurHCkP8

Androider•about 2 hours ago
It is unreasonable that the Google Search AI replies with this drivel, when the first search result contains the actual correct result. The AI should look at the search results and say “This was a meme in 2018…”
shevy-java•about 1 hour ago
> Instead, Google did what Google does in 2026 and gave me an AI overview. These used to bother me but at this point I'm mostly ok with them, they're sometimes helpful

I never found them helpful. I always have to block them via extensions.

Google is really an annoying company these days. I am hardly the only one who wishes that company were to cease to exist altogether. In the past I did not understand, on reddit, the de-google movement. Now I completely understand it, but I think it is the reverse as problem here - people abandoning Google. I think Google needs to abandon mankind and this planet. Let them go far away where they no longer cause any issues here.

> Google, a search engine which does not have human emotions, assumed that I had been spurned by a man in my life named Dario and decided what I wanted was an empathetic digital friend. What I wanted was some links, but that's not what Google does in 2026. Expanding the AI overview to see the full answer gave me this:

Poor guy ^^^ has not yet realised that AI slop steals his time. I realised this the first time I notice the AI slop generated text spam Google pushes onto people. A few lost souls may find this useful - I find it utter trash. No quality. Just steals my time.

> What in the fucking hell? I think this was the moment I, the frog, noticed the pot had been boiling for a while. In what universe is it Google's job to console me and be an empathetic listener rather than just find what I am looking for on the internet?

Good that he finally realised it. Million people noticed this before already. I noticed this when Google started to ruin its search engine. First time I remember was via AMP-ification. AMP mostly failed, but Google kept on pushing towards less quality and more suckage. AI is just the final nail in the coffin, but Google search started to suck way before that.

One of these days some scientists should determine when Google really started to suck, because in, say, 2006 or so, Google search did not suck as much.

> Regardless of what you think of AI or chatbots, I think it's pretty obvious this is just plain weird.

Not if you think Google is not doing this on purpose. They are trying to kill off the search engine so they can present you an AI slop spam world. The other AI slop companies do this too. Slop suckage everywhere now.

> Is it so hard to imagine that some parts of search were just fine before LLMs?

That is how YOU think - but not Google. They deliberately crippled their search engine. The adCompany that Google is today, has nothing to do with the original Google. The billionaires running the show just want to suck in more money and dish out more slop.

> I'm not sure how to feel about all of this. Maybe I should go talk to my friend Google, it's always so nice to me.

Some people realise things more slowly. I am glad he finally understands why so many people are pissed at Google. Same for youtube by the way - about 80% of the shorts are AI slop generated or AI slop modified. I noticed this when I watched Brent Spiner on that podcast show; in the video itself, he had white hair but not totally white. In the short, both he and Jonathan Frakes had much whiter hair. I then realised that AI spam filter slop lies to me. I hate AI slop. Youtube is now infected with that, in particular the shorts. Poor guys looking at their smartphones being spammed down via lying slopness.

Advertisement
mattlondon•about 2 hours ago
Because you are in a chat UI now. This is a skill issue - when you change your mindset that Google is now a chat UI to a LLM and not a query engine any more, you'll get better results. If you try the same zero-context prompt with chat.com for example you get a similar "want to talk about it?" response.

Try asking it "Tell me about the "Dario will never come over" meme - give me some of the example original tweets" for example and you get a timeline, tweets etc as the AI overview. Pretty useful really.

Tl:Dr - just like people, you need to give it some context.

Latty•about 2 hours ago
It's not a "skill issue", the product got worse.

If I wanted a chatbot, I'd go to a chatbot, I want a search. Making me frame my query as a question rather than just assuming it's a query by default is just bad.

mattlondon•about 2 hours ago
We have to remember we're not average users. As others have pointed out here, normal people always just asked natural language questions.

Why do you think it was Google who was doing all that research into AI that invented the transformer architecture - that all current LLMs are based off of - in the first place? Normal users just ask a question, they don't construct a query. I think there are quotes about Larry Page wanting "the Star Trek computer" - we've basically surpassed that now I think.

Google has been working on this sort of problem for decades, and it's paying off for them.

netsharc•8 minutes ago
What average user wants to be lied to by a machine who is pretending to have human feelings? Fuck me, I hope I never have to come into contact with any product/service you work on.
not_a_bot_4sho•about 1 hour ago
That's like me pressing the 'coffee' button on my coffee maker, and it gives me an audio definition and history because I didn't give it the context that I wanted a drink.

People expect certain conventions with well established products. It's not a skill issue when a product is broken.

kkkqkqkqkqlqlql•about 1 hour ago
I know this may be my poor English, but, ignoring the main point of the article, something I find tangentially troubling about the issue is that Gemini does not mention the possiblity of Dario dead. Like, if I were a lonely person who has lost someone and the only "thing" I can talk to is Gemini, would I have to say Dario was unalived or something?

Or is it just my bad English?

CurbStomper2•28 minutes ago
It started around 2015 when they went balls-deep into DEI nonsense. Prior to that Google was an engineering company. After that, it was a degeneracy. We still laugh at Google to this day, all the way to the bank.