[HN Gopher] Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize ...
___________________________________________________________________
Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries
Author : jsheard
Score : 214 points
Date : 2025-01-31 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| apparenttrash wrote:
| I like to read spicy things online. I've found that Google, even
| with safe search disabled, hides much of these unless your search
| is itself obviously explicit. I append "sex" to search for these
| without affecting results much. Entire sites are hidden
| otherwise.
| treefarmer wrote:
| The downside of this approach is that it can affect the search
| results returned. But I found that if you add " -fuck" or "
| -fucking" to your search term, it disables the AI summary without
| significantly affecting your search results (unless you happen to
| be looking for content of a certain kind).
| jprete wrote:
| If you're looking for that kind of content, you could remove
| the minus sign?
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Well, yes. You'll probably find some very niche kink videos
| though, depending on your search
| 867-5309 wrote:
| archive footage of the Queen of Fuc's husband?
| m463 wrote:
| I want to know if it invokes rule 34?
| jameslk wrote:
| If I start fucking adding swear words to all my fucking search
| queries, how the fuck will the stupid ass search engine know that
| I did not want it to use that shit as one of my keywords and give
| me back a whole lot of fucked up shit?
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| How you will you ever find out why there all these fracking
| snakes on this motherloving plane?
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| I like this version of the internet a lot better.
| observationist wrote:
| Fuck yeah!
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| It's not like it doesn't freely ignore any unquoted word
| whenever it feels like it.
| bmurphy1976 wrote:
| The quoted words search barely works these days anyway.
| mrandish wrote:
| Amazon Search joins the chat...
| roskelld wrote:
| This bugs me so much. It happens constantly. A few days
| back I searched for a person's name, put it in quotes and I
| got results with celebrity with somewhat similar name. Zero
| hits on the person I searched for on the front page. I had
| to add specifics to the query such as job title to find
| them.
| userbinator wrote:
| An easy way to see how a "search engine" has become
| "vague recommendation engine" is to take a distinctive
| phrase from one of its results, put it in quotes, and see
| if it manages to find that page again. Often, it doesn't.
| godelski wrote:
| > It's not like it doesn't freely ignore any quoted word
| whenever it feels like it.
|
| FTFY
| belter wrote:
| Well at least you will get great travel suggestions to
| Austria....
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria
| godelski wrote:
| To be fair, it's not like Google respects things like quotes or
| "-" so who says it won't just ignore your swear words?
|
| I'm joking, somewhat, but can we seriously start getting mad
| about this shit?
| ffhhj wrote:
| What if we add Gulf of Mexico?
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Why would I want to do that? I find the summaries very useful
| serviceberry wrote:
| I'd go out on a limb and guess that the advice is meant for
| people who don't find them useful.
|
| I don't, for two reasons. First, for looking up facts, they're
| nowhere near 100% dependable. If I need to check sources, might
| as well start there. Second, if someone made the effort to put
| useful content on the internet, I can grace them with a click.
| matthest wrote:
| In my limited experience, the summaries often include a lot of
| false information.
| kokanee wrote:
| They are useful if you don't care whether the information is
| correct, don't care where it came from, and don't care that it
| was stolen from publishers who in many cases invested time and
| money with the expectation of receiving search traffic in
| exchange.
| mythrwy wrote:
| What is the plan for this over time?
|
| I understand the appeal of not wanting to wade through 20
| links to find information (especially given SEO stuff that is
| often on top) but why will people continue to publish as
| traffic decreases due to AI summaries?
|
| I mean I understand the urgent need to keep up but the
| problem with "theft" is eventually it drives out honest
| production and everyone is worse off.
| anskia wrote:
| I definitely get fed up with AI assistants in the code ide and
| have said "just shut the fuck up and answer my question". I could
| just prompt it to be concise but this lets off mor steam.
| clircle wrote:
| Alternatively, you can just disable AI overviews in your Google
| settings. But that does not make for a very interesting Gizmodo
| article.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Can you? I couldn't figure out how to do that. Then again maybe
| it's because I googled it and the AI result told me it's not
| possible.
|
| Does anyone know if there's a uBlock origin filter for this?
| ToniCipriani wrote:
| Doesn't look like there's an official way to, most seem to
| involve hacking the search bar engines or installing an
| extension.
|
| https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-turn-off-ai-
| overview...
| ankit219 wrote:
| literally this: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1
| 3572151?hl=en&c...
| sunshinesnacks wrote:
| That doesn't work for me. The option was already toggled
| off.
| chatmasta wrote:
| > Note: Turning off "AI Overviews and more" in Search Labs
| will not disable all AI Overviews in Search. AI Overviews
| are part of Google Search like other features, such as
| knowledge panels, and can't be turned off
| sunshinesnacks wrote:
| Same here...
|
| > AI Overview > You can't completely disable Google's AI
| Overviews in your search results, but you can use workarounds
| to hide them.
|
| The workarounds didn't seem to work for me.
| insin wrote:
| I made an extension for it, as I couldn't find anything
| existing that also worked on mobile:
|
| https://soitis.dev/ai-overview-hider-for-google
|
| You could also just use the underlying CSS in something like
| Stylus, or convert it to uBlock filters:
|
| https://github.com/insin/ai-overview-hider-for-
| google/blob/m...
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Used the block element chooser by right clicking on the over
| view. However, I suspect it will be temporary given the
| random key: blocked:
| http://www.google.com/##div.EjQTId.YNk70c:nth-of-type(1)
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Why the fuck do so many people lie on the internet?
|
| >AI Overviews are part of Google Search like other features,
| such as knowledge panels, and can't be turned off.
|
| Please.
|
| Stop.
|
| Just stop.
|
| Is this a kink for you? Some kind of fetish?
| serviceberry wrote:
| There's no setting for that, Google is intentionally not giving
| you that choice. You can append &udm=14 to the search URL in
| browser settings, but that constraints search results to the
| "web" subcategory, so you also lose fairly useful features,
| such as the calculator, weather infoboxes, etc.
| dmansen wrote:
| I have also been telling Gemini to "fuck off" in my gmail, but
| that doesn't seem to make it go away
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| I too want a way to make Gemini go away in gmail. I regret
| clicking the "Try it out" button.
| braza wrote:
| I work with ML and I am bullish with AI in general; said that, I
| would pay between 5 to 10 USD a feature or toggle called "No AI"
| for several services.
|
| For myself I noticed 2 bad effects in my daily usage:
|
| - Search: impossible to reach any original content in the first
| positions. Almost everything sounds like AIsh. The punctuation,
| the commas, the semicolon, the narro vocabulary, and the
| derivative nature of the recent internet pages.
|
| - Discovery: (looking directly to you Spotify and Instagram) here
| I would add in the "No AI" feature another one "Forget the
| past..." and then set the time. I personally like to listen some
| orthogonal genres seasonally. But once that you listen 2 songs in
| a very spontaneous manner Spotify will recommend that for a long
| time. I listened out of curiosity some math rock, and the
| "Discovery Weekly" took 9 weeks to not recommend that anymore.
| bluetidepro wrote:
| For search, use Kagi. You don't have to use their AI products
| at all to just use search.
| frakt0x90 wrote:
| Strongly agree. Whenever I search something and am met with a
| sea of
|
| TOP 10 X; THE 20 BEST Y; 20 REASONS Z; etc.
|
| I go Kagi and am immediately refreshed.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| And yet Kagi isn't anywhere near as good as Google was ~13
| years ago.
|
| Yes - a big part of that is that online content is _so
| much_ worse than it used to be. But it became bad over time
| because of what Google incentivized.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Left field tip if you think a search engine is hiding stuff:
| Yandex. They're not actually Russian any more, but they're
| far enough down the list of search engines that nobody
| bothers to DMCA them.
| segasaturn wrote:
| If Kagi made a cheaper "no AI" tier I would be happy to
| subscribe. AI is costly to run, so even if you don't use the
| AI it's priced into your subscription fee - you're paying for
| an expensive product you don't want or use.
|
| e: according to Kagi's pricing page they do have a 'no AI'
| tier, but it limits your number of searches to 300/month.
| Seems like a totally arbitrary limitation, but its still
| better than forced AI.
| renlo wrote:
| Spotify used to have a "dislike" button for their Discover
| Weekly which helped with pruning music you don't like, but with
| the natural law of tech enshitification they removed that
| feature a month ago.
| goostavos wrote:
| That was such a frustrating decision. I had _almost_
| convinced Spotify that that one time I listened to Lustmord
| was just a random mood, and I don 't actually want to only
| listen to dronecore for the rest of my life.
| eminence32 wrote:
| I used to always hesitate to use that "dislike" button
| because I was worried that Spotify would not be able to
| distinguished between "I will always dislike this song" and
| "I don't want this song in this specific context"
| whycome wrote:
| I can't tell if you misspelled narrow or if "narro" is somehow
| referring to "narrated" type content we now see so much of. Or
| even just weird narrative things (eg, recipes).
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I respect your opinion but at the same time:
|
| > I work with ML and I am bullish with AI in general; said
| that, I would pay between 5 to 10 USD a feature or toggle
| called "No AI" for several services.
|
| Hard fuck this. I am not giving a company money to un-ruin
| their service. Just go to a competitor.
|
| I get with a bunch of these hyperscaled businesses it's
| borderline impossible to entirely escape them, but do what you
| can. I was an Adobe subscriber for years, and them putting
| their AI garbage into every app (along with them all steadily
| getting shittier and shittier to use) finally made me jump
| ship. I couldn't be happier. Yeah there was pain, there was
| adjustment period, but we need to cut these fuckers off
| already. No more eternal subscription fees for mediocre
| software.
|
| Office is next. This copilot shit is getting worse by the day.
| pants2 wrote:
| Last year we had to threaten to kill someone to get Gemini to
| properly format JSON. Computer science has gotten very weird.
| cyanydeez wrote:
| Well, unfortunately, modeling real life is like staring into
| the abyss.
| ok_dad wrote:
| At least for now, you can just append "-ai" onto your query and
| the AI summary will not be there.
| sunshinesnacks wrote:
| That's handy. Looks like it doesn't work if "ai" is also in
| your search, though. E.g.,
| https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+disable+ai+overview+i...
| ok_dad wrote:
| Yea, it's not perfect, but when I want to find facts (such as
| about the sizes of nails) and not possible "hallucinations"
| then it works out. Most of the time I just let the AI
| overview happen, and I ignore it, so that Google spends more
| money on a useless and possibly dangerous feature.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| The eternal struggle with in-band signalling...
| PyWoody wrote:
| Sony was way ahead of it's time here:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1_vWYQ
| drewg123 wrote:
| Seems like what I do when I encounter an AI answering machine
| that can answer only simple questions... after "representative"
| fails, I start saying "Give me a fucking human"
| yoavm wrote:
| Is this something they're slowly rolling out, or isn't available
| in the EU? I don't think I've ever seen an AI summary in my
| Google searches.
| apazzolini wrote:
| The best way I've found to remove AI summaries from Google
| results is appending `&udm=14`.
| nomel wrote:
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40450267
|
| Safari extension: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41298312
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Single moms in my area
|
| Vs
|
| Single moms in my area fucking
|
| Yep, it works
| nomel wrote:
| "-fucking" also disables it, but with the opposite problem!
| Nursie wrote:
| This is useful info, as Google's AI summaries have frequently
| been inaccurate.
|
| Example from yesterday - I was updating my mum's kindle fire
| tablet after it had been in a drawer for three years. It was
| stepping up fire-os versions one at a time and taking hours. So,
| a quick web search - what's the latest version of fire os 7?
|
| Google AI confidently answers 7.3.2.9, so cool, it'll be done
| soon then. Nope, it kept on going into 7.3.3.x updates.
|
| If you're going to be confidently wrong, probably best not to
| try.
| danso wrote:
| One tip I like to give for exploring public data is to do an
| early search for the word "fuck". It's a pretty ubiquitous word,
| but one that you _assume_ shouldn 't show up for certain fields,
| so seeing it, or not seeing it, can give useful insight to the
| the scope of the data universe and collection. Including
| where/who the data comes from, whether or not any validation
| exists during the collection process, and how updates/corrections
| are done to collected data.
|
| For example, you're required to provide accurate info about
| yourself when donating to a U.S. federal political campaign [0].
| Is it possible that someone, somewhere in America is legally
| named John Fucksalot? Or works for a company named Fucks, Inc?
| Maybe! We're a huge country with wildly diverse cultural
| standards and senses of humor. But a John Fucksalot, CEO of Fucks
| Inc, who lives in Fuck City, Ohio 42069? Probably not, and the
| fact that this record exists says something about how the rules
| and laws regarding straw donors are readily enforce. And whether
| or not an enforcement action happened, what field in the FEC data
| indicates a revised record?
|
| Seems like this tip can still be useful in the Age of LLMs. Not
| just for learning about the training data, but also how confident
| providers are in their models, and how many guardails they've
| needed to tack on to prevent it from giving unwanted answers.
|
| [0] https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-
| contributions/?...
| pjc50 wrote:
| There used to be a Fucking, Austria until they decided to self
| censor for the pesky English speakers.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria
| notahacker wrote:
| disappointed that Fucking has self censored, bearing in mind
| their road safety signs used to suggest local residents were
| in on the joke https://imgur.com/5KOCwdC
| kerkeslager wrote:
| I just cannot imagine why people are still using Google for
| search at this point. Search results were bad before the AI
| summary nonsense.
|
| Kagi has been a joy to use.
| psunavy03 wrote:
| Well . . . it certainly illustrates the diversity of the word.
| layer8 wrote:
| "Frelling" also works.
| medhir wrote:
| really sad that this is what it's coming to... why are we having
| to play these games to run a simple search?
| btown wrote:
| > This is not the first time internet sleuths have discovered a
| way to disable Google's AI-powered results. Other methods are
| more complicated, however, like adding a specific string of
| characters to the search results page URL. This method of
| swearing and pleading at Google to "just give me the fucking
| links" is much more cathartic.
|
| "More complicated" is actually just as simple as going to
| https://tenbluelinks.org/ and following the instructions. It's so
| refreshing to just see links when you search, and it's
| unfortunate that the OP makes it out to be something that's
| prohibitively difficult to do.
| 85392_school wrote:
| You might have even accidentally used the "no AI" mode if
| you've clicked the Web option before.
| meltyness wrote:
| This is also cathartic.
| rvnx wrote:
| There is another advantage, you also avoid ads
| mrandish wrote:
| I waste so much time figuring out how to get a previously
| functional tool to _stop_ shoving AI generated crap I don 't want
| and never asked for in front of me. They either provide no way to
| turn it off or hide how to turn it off deep in settings
| surrounded by dark patterns.
|
| I think it's because management at these companies has set AI
| usage metrics as a critical KPI. Thus teams are highly
| incentivized to just stick that shit in front of everyone and
| make sure it's hard or impossible to turn off. I actually think
| AI _can_ be genuinely useful in the right context but this insane
| over-rotation to shoving it down our throats risks turning AI
| into this decade 's Microsoft Bob - universally hated simply on
| general principle.
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| Not sure if it works for everyone, but write a quick addon that
| changes your browser's Agent header to something random or find
| an open source one. Google seems to freak out and give a bit
| different version of itself. I discovered it accidentally, not
| sure how far it works though.
| mrandish wrote:
| I'll give that a try. I already have several userscripts just
| to fix various annoying things about Google Search (like
| always enabling the Tools dropdown, adding several new date
| options and unhiding the search results-count (which is still
| there but now hidden by default)).
| hardlianotion wrote:
| I like the idea - it seems temporary but fun.
| Conscat wrote:
| Wow it actually works! Unfortunately my searches are still
| plagued by Geeks4Geeks results.
| globular-toast wrote:
| This is similar to something I've been thinking about, which is
| if people will develop ways of writing that signal somehow that
| they definitely are not AI. Like including certain "banned"
| phrases or whatever. Or logic contradictions that violate the
| laws of robotics or something.
|
| Or maybe we'll finally get serious about web of trust crypto if
| we want to continue talking to humans.
| singularis wrote:
| https://labs.google.com/search/experiment/1
| rmason wrote:
| It works but you don't get the results you want if you use it on
| travel queries. What you receive is a page of Reddit links on how
| to get laid in said city;<).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-31 23:00 UTC)