“Normal people”, as in 99% of people, will not bother editing the URL… most of them don’t even know what a URL is. They’ll just keep using whatever search window they get in their “internet” (browser).
However, Google would rather scrapers and people with ad blockers not make them waste money on AI when they can’t recoup them.
agressivelyPassive@feddit.de
on 24 May 2024 23:34
nextcollapse
That’s what’s really confusing me: why add an expensive feature, that obviously doesn’t work and even in the best case adds only minor improvements?
I mean, it’s not another option like with Bing. It’s the default. Every stupid little search will take up AI resources. For what? Market cap?
nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br
on 25 May 2024 00:37
nextcollapse
My guess is that google has been losing the public perception of an innovative company, and started to be felt as a big stable and slow moving one instead, and they’re trying so desperately to take back the previous public perception. They’re seeing the ai hype and the investment microsoft is doing on it. They probably also fear that bing might break their monopoly, and want to fully integrate some ai in their product, to prevent the competition from arising and passing the image of an innovative company.
Rather market penetration among the gullible, which leads to more ad impressions, which lead to ad income, which leads to market cap.
I bet they have an alternative plan in the back burner to slash that AI the moment they see it reduce ad income in their A/B testing… but right now the AI buzzword is strong in the air, it’s 2024’s main attractor for the most ad-targetable customers.
InternetUser2012@midwest.social
on 25 May 2024 00:56
collapse
They’re using it now to train it. Once it gets real good and people like and rely on it, it’ll get paywalled.
cooljacob204@kbin.social
on 25 May 2024 01:41
collapse
It won't get paywalled. Instead they will let it get useful then start injecting ads into it once people trust it.
Honestly. People moved to Google back in the day. If a search engine gets enough traction for being superior, the adoption will start. Slowly first, but it worked before. I see no reason why it wouldn’t happen again.
The people that use Google today did not move to Google back then. They came along after Google conquored the browser market.
Just like way back when, “The Internet” was Internet Explorer, today it’s Chrome. And until we can convince people to abandon that, then it’s an up-a-sheer-cliff battle.
The Internet today is propped up by the people who do not lament that it has turned into 5 websites in a trench coat, but who actively kick up a fit at the idea that it could or should be anything more varied or complicated than that.
AI seems to be the “I don’t need to think that much” measure of superiority this year… and sincerely, it’s likely here to stay. We will see different AIs with different levels of “no need to think” in different areas, but getting a ready made easy and simple answer, no matter how preposterous, has been the goal for a large part of the population since basically forever.
ringwraithfish@startrek.website
on 25 May 2024 01:56
collapse
Disinformation via AI is going to be absurd, especially if Google keeps going down the path of “Here’s an AI summary of search results”. It’s only a matter of time before someone figures out how to manipulate the AI through bad data.
Google has already lost the SEO war and they (supposedly) knew how their algorithms worked. How do they ever expect to control the AI black box?
guyrocket@kbin.social
on 24 May 2024 23:57
nextcollapse
There are browser userscripts out there now that do this automatically.
Kissaki@beehaw.org
on 25 May 2024 04:48
nextcollapse
What is this reporting? The tone sounds like a personal Twitter post.
which Google recently launched as a way to search the web without Google’s alpha-quality AI junk. It’s actually pretty nice, showing only the traditional 10 blue links, giving you a clean (well, other than the ads), uncluttered results page that looks like it’s from 2011.
Daxtron2@startrek.website
on 25 May 2024 05:16
collapse
I love seeing this same article rewritten and reposted all over Lemmy, such great engaging content /s
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
on 25 May 2024 11:07
collapse
threaded - newest
Until Google realizes normal.people would rather use this than take part in their AI search, and block usage of it outside of businesses.
Yeah, the headline sort of reads like Ars is daring Google to remove the flag.
Which they most likely will, just won't say anything.
Lmao it just starts showing AI results but using the flag stops showing the qualifier that it is AI results.
“Normal people”, as in 99% of people, will not bother editing the URL… most of them don’t even know what a URL is. They’ll just keep using whatever search window they get in their “internet” (browser).
However, Google would rather scrapers and people with ad blockers not make them waste money on AI when they can’t recoup them.
That’s what’s really confusing me: why add an expensive feature, that obviously doesn’t work and even in the best case adds only minor improvements?
I mean, it’s not another option like with Bing. It’s the default. Every stupid little search will take up AI resources. For what? Market cap?
My guess is that google has been losing the public perception of an innovative company, and started to be felt as a big stable and slow moving one instead, and they’re trying so desperately to take back the previous public perception. They’re seeing the ai hype and the investment microsoft is doing on it. They probably also fear that bing might break their monopoly, and want to fully integrate some ai in their product, to prevent the competition from arising and passing the image of an innovative company.
Rather market penetration among the gullible, which leads to more ad impressions, which lead to ad income, which leads to market cap.
I bet they have an alternative plan in the back burner to slash that AI the moment they see it reduce ad income in their A/B testing… but right now the AI buzzword is strong in the air, it’s 2024’s main attractor for the most ad-targetable customers.
They’re using it now to train it. Once it gets real good and people like and rely on it, it’ll get paywalled.
It won't get paywalled. Instead they will let it get useful then start injecting ads into it once people trust it.
Honestly. People moved to Google back in the day. If a search engine gets enough traction for being superior, the adoption will start. Slowly first, but it worked before. I see no reason why it wouldn’t happen again.
The people that use Google today did not move to Google back then. They came along after Google conquored the browser market.
Just like way back when, “The Internet” was Internet Explorer, today it’s Chrome. And until we can convince people to abandon that, then it’s an up-a-sheer-cliff battle.
The Internet today is propped up by the people who do not lament that it has turned into 5 websites in a trench coat, but who actively kick up a fit at the idea that it could or should be anything more varied or complicated than that.
AI seems to be the “I don’t need to think that much” measure of superiority this year… and sincerely, it’s likely here to stay. We will see different AIs with different levels of “no need to think” in different areas, but getting a ready made easy and simple answer, no matter how preposterous, has been the goal for a large part of the population since basically forever.
Disinformation via AI is going to be absurd, especially if Google keeps going down the path of “Here’s an AI summary of search results”. It’s only a matter of time before someone figures out how to manipulate the AI through bad data.
Google has already lost the SEO war and they (supposedly) knew how their algorithms worked. How do they ever expect to control the AI black box?
Degoogle instead.
.
There are browser userscripts out there now that do this automatically.
What is this reporting? The tone sounds like a personal Twitter post.
I love seeing this same article rewritten and reposted all over Lemmy, such great engaging content /s
First time I saw it.