• BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Do people still use the most popular search engine for search? I get you’re trying to be factitious but it comes across as naff.

      • billwashere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        It might be the most popular but it is utter crap and has been for a while. It has reached peak enshittification. You used to be able to say you absolutely wanted a term in the search or you didn’t want other terms. It ignores all of that now. Google stopped being about able to search years ago and is more about showing you the most relevant ad. I’m either DuckDuckGo or I self-host my own searxng. I’ve also tried using a locally hosted perplexica (running on my own local LLM) which uses searxng underneath the hood I think.

        Btw: I’m a yank so I had to look up naff so I learned some cool new slang! Now I’ll admit I was being slightly flippant but serious in the fact that Google really sucks as a search engine now.

      • ragas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I just tried to use google a few hours ago and it got me the same bad results as other search engines, only that it gave me a bunch of advertisements and AI slop first.

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Right… But you’re not operating under the misapprehension that Google is somehow an uncommon choice for search. I agree it’s gotten crap in a lot of cases, but equally I also know just about everyone uses it for search.

    • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I believe it, chiefly because I read the slop answer and then have to check 5 more pages to figure out if it’s spouting nonsense or not.

  • Sludgehammer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Riiight… Next headline: “Pusher claims that his drugs not the cause sleepless nights and bugs under the skin”

  • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    I run sites for a major NGO for addiction recovery. We often ask people how they found us. More than half now say AI. We don’t have ads in our sites, but for people monetizing their sites this must be dramatic.

    Also, Google must be bleeding ads revenue,

  • nadram@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Amount of Google searches I’ve made since implementation of AI results: zero

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Search clicks were dead already from 19 out of the top 20 results being AI generated SEO garbage pages and “articles” that contains information that is blatantly false and even contradictory. AI just gives you that same garbage right there without having to click anything. The real info is probably buried somewhere two search pages down.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Honestly, the guy is absolutely full of crap, but this is a solid point. The question os where the clicks AI summaries are absolutely killing are coming from.

      I can’t imagine this will survive forever, considering that Google has already gone through the loop of getting nuked from orbit by the EU by summarizing news content once. Even if AI wasn’t involved in this at all, it’s of very dubious legality in… well, wherever Google News got swiftly shut down.