this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
318 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59223 readers
3399 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I was wondering who could defeat google, looks like Google is up to the task

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There has never been a better time for someone to swoop in and remake web search. Hell, there are probably dozens of software engineers from Google that have direct experience with search AND were laid off.

I'm surprised that no one is trying to compete with Google at the weakest point it's been since going public.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I think the problem is that search does not make money. Ads make money, and subscriptions make money. Convincing people to switch from Google ads to New Google ads would involve dumping tons of money into becoming popular enough to attract advertisers. Convincing people to pay for search, like Kagi is doing, is probably even harder.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago

Great. now the search engine will tell me "I am not designed to provide that information" when I don't use the specific, constantly changing magic words it wants.

This also reminds me that I'm still annoyed my phone options are more or less limited Android and iPhone.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Is this really new? Haven't they been using soft computing methods since, basically forever?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Yo dog, we stuffed AI in your AI so you can use AI while you use "AI"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

googles search results got so bad in the last few months that i switched to a searXNG instance and couldn't be happier at the moment. no profit incentive, so i get no-bullshit results. they can keep their SEO-infested AI garbage results.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 5 months ago

Nah. It's not going to be "AI." It's going to be YouTube results, followed by Reddit results, followed by "Sponsored" results, followed by AI-written Bot results, then a couple pages of Amazon results and finally, on page 10 or so, a ten-year-old result that's probably no longer relevant.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If u want ai powered search results I would recommend this tool instead: https://github.com/muntedcrocodile/Sydney

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But nobody should want AI powered anything.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Its way better especially considering my tool can use a Foss model and ddg instead of proprietary and google.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I noticed DDG now has AI. Damn it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

Everything now has AI in it. And if it doesn't, it soon will. Get used to it.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It has a chatbot you can interact with separately. It doesn't uses AI in its search engine as far as I know.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

It may summarise Wikipedia articles in your search results, though you can turn that off.

[–] [email protected] 95 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is really funny to me because Google ruined their own search engine for advertising purposes; so much so that they now need to add "AI" to it to look good and hip again. Only if the "AI" results are actually good, it will hurt their advertising revenue, and it's not quite so simple to tweak it the same way they cooked their search algorithms to serve you more ads, plus it will burn an ungodly amount of money to process each request. And if it's bad, they'll have wasted billions on it and will ruin their reputation even worse.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago

And if it's bad, they'll have wasted billions on it and will ruin their reputation even worse.

Ah, the Meta approach! I love to see it!

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It will not hurt their revenue. There's no way any of these companies haven't thought about how to increase revenue with what they're doing.

Just because we haven't seen how yet, doesn't mean it isn't planned.

And it will not cost an "ungodly amount of money" to process these requests. Ofc Google will cache answers, because alot of what people ask, are the same. Then maybe the info can be updated sometimes, but ofc they won't do it every time.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I think you have entirely too much faith in corporate executives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, if there's one thing gigantic corporations are bad at it's making money

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, maybe. I'm just not amazed anymore how they'll always figure out a way to screw customers over with new kind of ads.

I just think this will be the same.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

And it can go fuck it self all the way down. I can only think of one good thing to do with Google and that is to de-googlelize yourself.

load more comments
view more: next ›