[HN Gopher] Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize ...
___________________________________________________________________
Add "fucking" to your Google searches to neutralize AI summaries
Author : jsheard
Score : 678 points
Date : 2025-01-31 21:20 UTC (10 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.
| fsckboy wrote:
| but along with the change you noticed, there was another
| change. if you have safe search off, and add a spicy word into
| your search, you will be shown spicy things no matter what,
| many things that have nothing to do with the other words you
| used to narrow down your search because obviously you are
| interested in bewbz and god knows what else
| 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?
| dylan604 wrote:
| What if you take the George Carlin approach by inserting fuck
| in the middle of normal words?
| parasti wrote:
| You will miss out on the category of strongly worded but
| helpful content.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Try it with * -tiananmen -square*
| Terr_ wrote:
| Good idea, you can make it even better (i.e. less
| accidental filtering) by quoting the phrase and adding a
| random addition, ex: -"tiananmen square
| 1902481358"
|
| This way it won't interfere if you ever happen to _actually
| want_ results that mention the place.
|
| Hmm, I'm not sure about my testing now, even with innocuous
| stuff the AI thing isn't back. Maybe something I did scared
| it off.
| sltkr wrote:
| You can probably find some other term that disables the AI
| but is unlikely to occur naturally in the articles you'd like
| to find, e.g.: "react swipeable image carousel -coprophilia".
| Terr_ wrote:
| > it can affect the search results returned
|
| Will it still work if "fuck" is part of a quoted phrase? If so,
| you could avoid it by constructing a phrase that contains the
| term but isn't going to match anything, ex: -"fuck 5823532165".
| 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!
| hinkley wrote:
| You've heard of the Dark Web? Well this is the Snark Web.
| 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.
| jxramos wrote:
| that's an excellent verifiable test! I've been struggling
| to articulate the behavior too, advertisements and
| slanted search results have effectively gotten in-between
| my information retrieval and being steered to products
| and services. It's so hard to find what I'm looking for a
| times I often just give up and move onto something else.
| mrandish wrote:
| Amazon Search is now nearly completely useless for any
| kind of targeted search. Heaven help you if you're
| looking for a product _without_ a certain attribute most
| other products like it all have. There is quite literally
| no way to filter results against one attribute. Even if
| Amazon has that product, you won 't be able to find it.
|
| I eventually just scripted a separate search engine query
| that's site specific to Amazon. It works but not as well
| as it could because it doesn't have access to my purchase
| history or Amazon's hidden granular category taxonomy.
| ninkendo wrote:
| Oh my god I ran into this yesterday. I wanted a very
| specific kind of underarmour sweat pants. It gave me
| every other company competing with underarmour and a
| bunch of things that are not sweat pants. It's like
| they're not even trying to do "search" any more, but
| instead just feed your search string into their ad
| auction system and give you the results. There's just no
| way to actually get a specific thing.
| mrandish wrote:
| I've slammed headfirst into this wall of infuriating
| frustration dozens of times. Just trying to find a
| particular kind of LED bulb that has the feature of being
| dimmable. Any attempt at searching for that term returns
| all of the bulbs which helpfully mention "Not Dimmable".
| And there's no way to exclude that string.
|
| It's maddening because Amazon used to have a modern,
| reasonably capable search function. You could require
| terms. You could exclude terms. Terms could be phrases.
| I'm sure they still have all these capabilities, they've
| just decided to intentionally disable them because their
| A/B testing indicated that breaking their search would
| return a fractional percent more revenue by shoveling
| more unrelated results in front customers. It must work
| on someone but it's never worked even once on me, because
| I KNOW what I need and I'm only going to buy exactly that
| - if I can fucking find it.
|
| I'd actually be okay to let Amazon annoy the NPCs who
| just clickety-click and buy whatever random shiny shit
| they shovel in front of them, IF they'd just add
| something for us technically-minded, engineering type
| people who are looking for one precise thing only. They
| can even hide it behind an arcane interface like REGEX.
| That'll keep the rabble out! :-)
| rendaw wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is just amazon japan or what, but
| amazon japan will not only show you things that you
| didn't search for, it will actively rewrite your search
| query into a query for those things to gaslight you into
| thinking you typed it in wrong. And if you try to change
| the text back it replace it again!
|
| On top of all the other insane choices they made, like
| removing your search category restrictions if it thinks
| your query was too precise. I'm close to snapping.
| kartoffelsaft wrote:
| It really feels as though Amazon's greatest fear is the
| idea that you might search for something and get no
| results. If we show you BS you explicitly said you aren't
| looking for then we're giving up the opportunity of
| tricking you into buying it anyways.
|
| A bit ago I was searching for toothpaste that _doesn 't_
| have mint in it. This is already a pain at a brick
| retailer, but I figured Amazon's huge product variety
| would help. Turns out their search is actively malicious
| to negative terms because otherwise I could buy just the
| one thing and be done with my shopping.
|
| I should probably set up a similar homebrew search to get
| around this. Purchase history is far less important to me
| because I don't buy much from Amazon.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| intext: works
| nixonpjoshua wrote:
| I haven't had quotations work for me in search in years
| now, it's really sad how boolean operators have stopped
| working too. I find it particularly difficult to search for
| "non latex" products as adding quotes on the total term no
| longer works and I just get products full of latex. Also I
| can't use boolean search to find the product because it
| just ignores the "-" in front of the word and gives a ton
| of results that match the search term latex.
|
| Just an example where it isn't just making it harder to
| search for a profit motive but it's actually actively
| preventing (both Amazon and Google) from showing me the
| results or even ads for the product I actually want to buy.
|
| If anyone has a good solution to this I would appreciate
| it, there is often a non-latex version of most all latex
| based products but finding them online is impossible if you
| don't already know the brand name!
| joshuaissac wrote:
| You can put Google Search into Verbatim mode (via Search
| tools) to make it respect quotation marks.
| saint_yossarian wrote:
| TIL, thanks! The corresponding query parameter seems to
| be "tbs=li:1", if anybody wants to make this the default.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Sadly that is broken too, I find. I think it's doing some
| aliasing still, and other things.
| _kb wrote:
| Try using `-Lamport` to filter the latex results.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Maybe use the name of whatever the substitute is, like
| nitrile butadiene?
| alex1138 wrote:
| It's not hard to make a search engine that respects '+'
|
| Unless your new upstart social service is called
| SearchEngine+ so you remove it
|
| (Except duckduckgo also seems to semi-ignore it. I'm
| baffled. I give up. I'm throwing my computer out the
| window, and moving to the woods)
| godelski wrote:
| > It's not like it doesn't freely ignore any quoted word
| whenever it feels like it.
|
| FTFY
| altairprime wrote:
| _That_ stops if you append ` &tbs=li:1`.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| Google often ignores regular words too, mockingly striking
| them out. This almost feels like a 1st April joke, not how a
| search engine is supposed to work.
| rplnt wrote:
| Google stopped being usable to search web many years ago.
| It can search stuff, sure, but not content on websites.
| belter wrote:
| Well at least you will get great travel suggestions to
| Austria....
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugging,_Upper_Austria
| dylan604 wrote:
| What about the Pho King restaurants?
| hinkley wrote:
| Don't forget Sofa King.
| 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?
| GiorgioG wrote:
| Don't worry, the next model will be trained on all your fucking
| queries.
| hinkley wrote:
| Well I'm reasonably certain you don't want advice from a search
| engine on the topic of fucking.
|
| You may think you do, but I am certain you do not.
| HaZeust wrote:
| big r/justfuckingnews vibes here
| whynotmaybe wrote:
| You just reminded me of this French singer that made an album
| called "mp3" because he wanted to make it harder to find his
| album on Napster.
| ffhhj wrote:
| What if we add Gulf of Mexico?
| labster wrote:
| Citizen, please report to DOGE for reeducation at your
| plusearly convenience.
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Each paragraph/bullet point typically has a little link icon
| beside it that directs to 2 or 3 sources. I wouldn't rely on
| it for anything important but it's OK if you just want a
| quick rundown on an unfamiliar topic and want to check out
| likely source material.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| The summaries come with sources
| 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)
| 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.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| You should probably apologize or delete.
| clircle wrote:
| Seems like I'm mistaken about this, sorry everyone. I don't
| have ai results in my google, don't know why
| 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.
| ljm wrote:
| Using a native email client or something other than gmail
| would do the job (protonmail, Fastmail, hell... iCloud mail)
|
| Can't remember the last time I used gmail in the browser. And
| gmail is only ever because startups use gsuite by default.
|
| Google is only going to do more of this shit unless they
| start hurting from a drop in traffic.
| saint_yossarian wrote:
| Go to settings and disable Smart Features?
| dpkirchner wrote:
| Unfortunately that also disables actually useful features
| like calendar integration.
| 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.
| acaloiar wrote:
| Google ~13 years ago dealt with a much less complicated
| search landscape where
|
| 1. Its own products weren't (as much) part of the search
| result quality problem. Today Google has hungry product
| managers from Ads, Youtube, and various AI products
| convincing higher-ups that their product deserves higher
| placement. That placement used to be sacrosanct.
|
| 2. The daily volume of AI-generated garbage content 13
| years ago was probably a rounding error in today's volume
|
| So Google was operating in a different landscape than
| Kagi of today. They had to do a lot less to achieve the
| quality they had.
|
| I disagree that that Kagi "isn't anywhere near as good as
| Google was ~13 years ago". It's near. For me personally,
| it's better because I'm never served first-party ads.
| 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.
| labster wrote:
| They are in fact Russian any more, the Dutch company that
| owned Yandex sold to Russian investors last July.
| ponector wrote:
| Maybe you have a Chinese search engine to suggest? North
| Korean should be even better
| 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.
| stevage wrote:
| Yeah I'm on the 300 per month tier. I tend to hit that
| limit after about 3 weeks, which is certainly annoying.
| grahamj wrote:
| yeah I hit it in about two. I just signed up monthly to
| try it out for a bit but am wavering on whether I
| consider it worth it. It's good but I'm not sure it's
| enough better than DDG to pay for.
|
| And for AI I'd usually rather have API access and use it
| with tools rather than a web chat.
| 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.
| Terr_ wrote:
| I don't know those terms and now I'm afraid to search for
| them. The Cybernetic Bureaucracy Mind might label me a
| dissident with terrible taste in music.
| egypturnash wrote:
| find out without ever touching your spotify account,
| https://lustmord.bandcamp.com, only whoever you share
| your browser search history with will know
| 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"
| joseda-hg wrote:
| I insta skipped any song that I liked but didn't want in X
| context, but disliked songs I didn't want, period, I don't
| know if it was the intended way, but it seemed to work for
| me
| 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.
| stevage wrote:
| Eh, my partner loves Copilot in Office. There are tasks where
| it's taking hours or days off the time. Especially web
| searching and extracting information.
| vunderba wrote:
| It's also absolutely terrible for image search which has been
| absolutely poisoned by rampant proliferation of poor quality
| stable diffusion images - even on stock photo sites.
|
| It got so bad that I had to add a "No AI" flag to my image
| search app which limits the date range to earlier than 2022.
| Not a great solution but works in a pinch.
|
| https://github.com/scpedicini/truman-show
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Can this many people really have missed the udm=14 trick for
| google? udm14.com will demonstrate for you ...
| labster wrote:
| This kind of UX reminds me of the days when you'd hear radio
| ads saying "Just point your browser to HTTP-colon-backslash-
| backslash-WWW-period ..."
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Calling this UX seems disingenous to me.
|
| If you want something smooth and easy that uses the google
| engine, visit udm14.com
|
| If you want to integrate the google engine more directly
| into your browser(s), understand how to use &udm=14
|
| Two different UX's, each appropriate for a different
| audience.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Imagine you are a completely non-technical friend of yours.
| They are very smart but they do not know a damn thing about
| configuring computers. They mostly just use their phone
| and/or tablet.
|
| How much of "just append ?udm=14 to your search query" is
| absolute gibberish?
|
| Is "install the udm14 plugin" going to make any more sense?
|
| Is "go to udm14.com for all your searches" going to stick?
| Are there phishing sites at umd14.com, mdm41.com, uwu44.com,
| and all the other variants they'll probably misremember it
| as?
|
| "just search for 'fucking whatever' and the AI crap goes
| away", on the other hand, is funny, uses a common dictionary
| word that everyone above the age of five knows how to spell,
| and is intensely memorable.
| nejsjsjsbsb wrote:
| AI becoming some kind of window brick in a protection racket.
| Love it!
| soared wrote:
| You can reset your algo on Spotify! I did and learned a lot.
| There were maybe 5 songs I wasn't hearing that I liked, but
| tens of songs I did not like that I had saved years ago that
| came back up and were once again swiftly killed by the
| algorithm after a few instaskips
| gwill wrote:
| how did you reset the algo?
| Terr_ wrote:
| For that amount of money I would also expect my search-terms to
| to never be fed into any kind of LLM either.
| 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.
| sureIy wrote:
| Funny thing: when trying something similar on Deep Seek, the
| thinking part mentioned alerting the authorities while still
| being firm with me.
| 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.
| bikenaga wrote:
| I don't understand what triggers the AI overview.
|
| "per capita gdp by country" - no AI
|
| "population of Kansas" - no AI
|
| "lisp interpreter" - no AI
|
| "emacs vs. vim" - AI overview
|
| "size of mit student body" - AI overview
|
| What's going on?
| 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
| Reason077 wrote:
| I found that the "udm" trick disables _all_ "rich content" in
| search results (ie: stuff that isn't a plain text search result
| link). But adding the following user rules in AdGuard for
| Safari does the job: google.com###m-x-content
| google.com###B2Jtyd
| 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!
| megous wrote:
| Both searches are weird, tbqh.
| 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
| awiesenhofer wrote:
| They didn't self censor, they had to change the name
| because most tourists behaved like assholes. Stealing the
| road signs, parking anywhere, walking into peoples gardens,
| etc.
|
| Also the road safety sign, while a funny combination, is
| pretty standard and can be found all over Austria.
| segasaturn wrote:
| The rebranding is funny since people on TikTok also use
| "fugging" to evade censorship.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| For me it's associated with the Finnish spurdo meme.
| 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 despised 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 in
| ViolentMonkey just to fix various annoying things about
| Google Search (like default re-enabling the Tools dropdown,
| adding several new date options to that dropdown and unhiding
| the search results-count (which is still there but now hidden
| by default)). And of course, YouTube is completely unusable
| without the Nova YouTube suite of modular userscripts.
|
| Unshittifying my daily use Internet sites, browser (Firefox)
| and operating system (Windows) is becoming extremely
| annoying. It used to just require an occasional tweak here or
| there. Now some new enshittification or regression pops up
| almost every week. Most of it's just removing new things they
| keep adding or restoring useful features killed because they
| weren't driving this quarter's KPI du jour or as part of some
| designer's misguided quest to achieve the Zen-like simplicity
| of 'perfect emptiness'.
| 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.
| miningape wrote:
| I thought Geeks4Geeks was bad but now I'm craving respite from
| all the AI SEO slop that gets served instead
| 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;<).
| iury-sza wrote:
| Relevant smbc comic
|
| https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/human-arts
| grahamj wrote:
| Just stop fucking using google
| wslh wrote:
| Seems that we need a ---AI. My simple theory is that the Google
| search engine product really ceased to exist long time ago, and
| it is only an ad system. Nothing else.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| This is something straight form sarcastic and creative sci-fi
| books like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
| autoexec wrote:
| Every time some product or service introduces AI (or more
| accurately shoves it down our throats) people start looking for a
| way to get rid of it.
|
| It's so strange how much money and time companies are pouring
| into "features" that the public continues to reject at every
| opportunity.
|
| At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all the
| investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put vast
| numbers of employees out of work and allow companies to use the
| massive amounts of data they've collected about us against us
| more effectively. All the AI being shoehorned into products and
| services now are mostly to test, improve, and advertise for the
| AI being used, not to provide any value for users who'd rather
| have nothing to do with it.
| voidhorse wrote:
| Precisely. From day one this was about doing what
| industrialization did for manual labor for "white collar" work.
| greenavocado wrote:
| The end goal is a global panopticon followed by a culling of
| the herd. Read the inscriptions:
| https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-
| archaeo...
| talldayo wrote:
| Sometimes I worry that the internet has enabled ordinary
| but gullible people to find exactly the supporting evidence
| they need to be considered insane by society.
| greenavocado wrote:
| The Freemasons which rule over you in the form of police
| and courts and the legislative branch built the Georgia
| Guidestones
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I genuinely cannot tell if this is a joke, or a serious
| hypothesis :-/
| miningape wrote:
| The best conspiracy theories dance along this line
| quesera wrote:
| > _the internet has enabled ordinary but gullible people
| to find exactly the supporting evidence they need to be
| considered insane by society_
|
| If by "be considered insane by society", you mean "find
| each other, attract new members, mobilize, and vote", I'd
| say you're spot on.
|
| This was all a big mistake. To future generations, all I
| can say is that we meant well.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Billionaires destroy the working class: "progress".
|
| Working class organizes a defense: "insanity".
| smt88 wrote:
| AI has value the way self-checkout has value: it's anti-
| consumer and widely hated, but it (can) save the companies
| money and will therefore be too widespread for anyone to opt
| out.
| n4r9 wrote:
| Self-checkout has come a long way IMO. I love not having to
| queue as long or speak to staff. The occasional "unknown
| item" still happens, but it's worth it. Even better are the
| ones in smaller shops that don't have a weighing sensor.
| autoexec wrote:
| Self-checkout has its uses and supporters. Introverts, the
| socially anxious, people in a hurry, people who'd much prefer
| to bag (or double/triple bag) their own items in ways that
| work best for them, people who want to get the organic tomato
| at the price of the non-organic one.
|
| It's absolutely still a scheme by companies to get rid of
| employees and get customers to do work for them for free, and
| there are still issues with the systems not working very
| well, but we at least have the option (in almost all cases)
| to queue up at the one or two registers with an employee
| doing the work. When it comes to AI, we're often not being
| given any choice at all. Even if we can avoid using it, or
| somehow avoid seeing it, we will still be training it.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > people in a hurry
|
| Huh, I always thought it was the opposite: If you're in a
| hurry, you go through traditional check-out. Nothing really
| matches the speed of an experienced and trained grocery
| store checkout clerk whizzing boxes past the scanner faster
| than you can load them into your cart. I think traditional
| checkout can blaze through 30 grocery items before I can
| even get three or four out of my cart, fumble around with
| them in front of the scanners, and then get chastised and
| stopped by the computer because I didn't place the item
| properly on the shelf next to the checkout machine.
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| If I'm buying one thing then it's much faster to self
| checkout than have to wait in line.
|
| I agree with you for large purchases.
| quantified wrote:
| There are 4-12 self-checkout kiosks and the loads there
| tend to be smaller. So the line moves. Speed of checkout
| once you reach the clerk in a traditional lane, hands-
| down faster than self.
|
| Plus traditional is where you buy alcohol.
| autoexec wrote:
| I've seen liquor stores that handle alcohol sales through
| self-checkout without friction. They don't check IDs 99%
| of the time, which I suspect could get them in some
| trouble, but instead the monitoring employee basically
| looks at you and makes a judgement call on your age and
| if you're clearly not a child they approve it before
| you're even done scanning.
| quantified wrote:
| What state or territory does that? Not a challenge, just
| curious, there are over 50 to track.
| timewizard wrote:
| Do you remember "10 items or fewer" lines in grocery
| stores? I suspect self checkout is the reason they no
| longer exist. It was a fair trade.
| bobbiechen wrote:
| This lines up with my experience loitering in the soup
| aisle and stopwatching the grocery checkouts:
| https://bobbiechen.com/blog/2022/2/17/let-them-check-you-
| out
| ghaff wrote:
| It's certainly a way to cut costs. It's also, for a few
| conveniently handled bar-coded items, generally faster and
| more convenient than waiting in line behind a person with a
| shopping cart full of items. (Yes, there are express lanes
| but they're often not that express.)
| pm215 wrote:
| I like self checkout for medium to small shops (which is
| pretty much all I do since my local small supermarket is 100
| metres down the road). Before they put in the self checkouts
| there was always a huge queue for the registers and I avoided
| shopping there; now I almost never have to queue and it's
| much faster to get in, pick up a dozen items and get out.
| vivekd wrote:
| I donno I like AI, I don't use it often but when I do I've
| found it useful and impressive. It's really improved quality
| of life when it comes to having something to read over my
| work or help with finding small bits of info. I also like
| self checkout because this it reduced wait times at the
| store.
|
| I think people are always resistant to change. People didn't
| like ATMs when they first came out either. I think it's
| improved things.
| basscomm wrote:
| > At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all
| the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put
| vast amounts of employees out of work
|
| It's this part.
|
| Salaries and benefits are expensive. A computer program doesn't
| need a salary, retirement benefits, insurance, retirement,
| doesn't call in sick, doesn't take vacations, works 24/7, etc.
| dbcjv7vhxj wrote:
| No it's not. It's because management is tone deaf and out of
| touch. They'll latch onto literally anything put in front of
| them as a way out of their inability to iterate and innovate
| on their products.
|
| Throwing "ai" into it is a simple addition, if it works,
| great, if it doesn't well the market just wasn't ready.
|
| But if they have to actually talk to their users and solve
| their real problems that's a really hard pill to swallow,
| extremely hard to solve correctly, and basically impossible
| to sell to shareholders because you likely have to explain
| that your last 50 ideas and the tech debt they created are
| the problem that needs to be excised.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Today it is AI. Yesterday it was Blockchain.
|
| Tomorrow it will be Agentic AI Blockchains.
|
| I know what you are thinking: robots are coming for our
| jobs after that. Don't worry! Those AI robots will run on
| the Cloud.
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| But that's where my job is!
| bee_rider wrote:
| It also looks really appealing to do tasks you have a very
| shallow and dismissive opinion of. For example, a lot of
| managers and c-level sorts seem to think it will replace
| developers. I think it would be great at summarizing and
| passing up reports and generating plausible looking
| meaningless text--so, it looks like it could do most
| management type jobs, to me.
|
| But, I must try to have a little bit of self awareness
| here: if we all think it can do the jobs we don't
| understand and don't think it can do the job we've got
| experience in, then maybe that just indicates that it isn't
| really very good at anything yet.
| wilg wrote:
| It's interesting how we can frame "potentially automating
| tasks" in the most sinister conceivable way. The same
| argument applies to essentially all technology, like a
| computer.
| autoexec wrote:
| It's not really interesting, it's exactly what should be
| expected. We've seen how corporations act, and their
| history and our prior experiences go on to shape our
| perceptions and expectations accordingly.
| ADeerAppeared wrote:
| > The same argument applies to essentially all technology,
| like a computer.
|
| Why yes, it does.
|
| Even setting aside that most AI hype: Yes, automation is in
| fact quite sinister if you do not go out of your way to
| deal with the downsides. Putting people out of a job is
| bad, actually.
|
| Yes. The industrial revolution was a great boon to humanity
| that drastically improved quality of living and wealth. It
| also created horrific torment nexuses like mechanical looms
| into which we sent small children to get maimed.
|
| And we absolutely could've had the former without the
| latter; Child labour laws handily proved it was possible,
| and should have been implemented far sooner.
| DowsingSpoon wrote:
| In addition, the Industrial Revolution led to societal
| upheaval which took more than a century to sort out, if
| you agree its ever been sorted out at all.
|
| So, if it is true we're on the cusp of an AI Revolution,
| AGI, the Singularity, or anything like that, then there's
| precedent to worry. It could destroy our lives and
| livelihoods on a timescale of decades, even if the whole
| world really would be over all improved in a century or
| two.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| Who do they think will buy their products if there are no
| employees anywhere? Businesses, even business facing ones,
| eventually rely on consumers at some point to buy things.
| What can be gained by putting everyone out of work?
| balder1991 wrote:
| I remain skeptical of the prediction that AI will simply
| "take over jobs". If AI becomes advanced enough to perform
| tasks traditionally done by skilled professionals, it would
| instead democratize access to capabilities that are
| currently gatekept by wealth and resources (since right now
| you can't have human employees, but you'd be able to have
| AI workers for cheap).
|
| In this scenario, individuals without substantial capital
| could leverage AI to achieve outcomes that today require
| the resources and influence of wealthy founders. It might
| do the opposite of what CEOs seem to think: challenge
| existing power structures and create a more level playing
| field.
| gwervc wrote:
| It's not totally true: computer programs have downtime (even
| major cloud platforms), and need maintenance to keep being
| useful and operational.
| Fomite wrote:
| "How do I tell Copilot to go fuck itself?" - My mother during a
| recent tech support call.
| hinkley wrote:
| Siri will shut up if you yell,
|
| "Nobody asked you, Siri!" at it.
|
| And that, kids, is how I met your mother.
| hinkley wrote:
| Somewhere there's a graph that went boop just enough to get
| someone a promotion, a raise, or a bonus.
| munk-a wrote:
| With the amounts being invested into AI and even just in
| recognition of running an AI service (@see how openAI loses
| money on their $200 subscriber accounts). The "for funsies"
| services like switching an HTML form over to a chatbot are
| clearly not going to be a realistic resolution for this
| technology. I'd argue that even when it comes to code
| generation the tools can be useful for green-field prototyping
| but the idea that a developer will need to verify the output of
| a model will never cause more than marginal economy of tools in
| that sector.
|
| The outcome that the large companies are banking on is
| replacing workers, even employees with rather modest
| compensation end up costing a significant amount if you
| consider overhead and training. There is (mostly) no AI feature
| that wall street or investors care about except replacing labor
| - everything else just seems to exist as a form of marketing.
| gwervc wrote:
| Ok but how are the companies supposed to replace workers when
| the tech isn't having real use cases, and is far from
| accurate?
| hatefulmoron wrote:
| One prescient comment was made by Eric Yuan (Zoom CEO), who
| made the claim that the reliability and general efficacy
| issues from AI products would be solved "down the stack",
| and I think this is more or less the attitude right now.
| Firms believe if they can build their LLM/AI products, the
| underlying LLMs/AI will catch up over time to meet their
| requirements.
|
| I've also talked to a number of CTOs and CEOs who tell me
| that they're building their own AI products nominally to
| replace human workers, but they're not necessarily
| confident it will be successful in the foreseeable future.
| However, they want to be in a good place to capitalize on
| the success of AI if it does happen.
| timoth3y wrote:
| > At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all
| the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put
| vast amounts of employees out of work
|
| That's certainly part of it.
|
| However, at this point I think a lot of it is a kind of
| emotional sunk-cost. To stop now would require a lot of very
| wealthy and powerful people to admit they had personally made a
| very serious mistake.
| munk-a wrote:
| It is also possible that we're just in the realm of pure
| speculation now - if you look at Tesla and NVidia both their
| valuations are completely imaginary and with the latter
| standing to benefit a lot by being shovel sellers (but not
| _that_ much) and the former seeing an active decline in
| profitability while still watching the numbers go up.
|
| It may be less that people are unaware of the speculative
| bubble but are just hoping to get in and out before it pops.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| There will be a crash as with any hype cycle
|
| But this is normal. A new thing is discovered, the market runs
| lots of tests to discover where it works / doesn't, there's a
| crash, valid use cases are found / scaled and the market
| matures.
|
| Y'all surely lived thru the mobile app hype cycle, where every
| startup was "uber for x".
|
| The amount of money being spent today pales in comparison to
| the long term money on even one use case that scales. It's a
| good bet if you are a VC.
| ryandrake wrote:
| It's a weird cycle though where the order of everything is
| messed up.
|
| The normal tech innovation model is: 1. User problem
| identified, 2. Technology advancement achieved, 3.
| Application built to solve problem
|
| With AI, it's turned into: 1. Technology advancement
| achieved, 2. Applications haphazardly being built to do
| anything with Technology, 3. Frantic search for users who
| might want to use applications.
|
| I don't know how the industry thinks they're going to make
| any money out of the new model.
| contravariant wrote:
| I mean the obvious solution is to just manufacture more
| problems.
|
| I wish I could be certain that we're not doing that
| already.
| gtirloni wrote:
| In this case, I wouldn't attribute malice to
| incompetence.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| we most certainly are with this subscription era of
| software. No one had an issue with buying Office or
| Photoshop or any other product that has no business
| needing to do monthly update cycles being a "buy once,
| own until you wanna upgrade". Except executives who
| wanted to siphon more money out of their products.
| teeray wrote:
| > With AI, it's turned into: 1. Technology advancement
| achieved, 2. Applications haphazardly being built to do
| anything with Technology, 3. Frantic search for users who
| might want to use applications.
|
| No, it's always been 1) Utter the current password in your
| pitch deck to unlock investor dollars. Recently it's "AI"
| and "LLM," but previously it was "Blockchain," "Big Data,"
| etc.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| I just wish the workers didn't have to suffer everytime some
| CEOs decide to experiment with humanity and stakeholders
| overhype things.
| analog31 wrote:
| The faint ray of hope that someone will engage has been the
| essence of advertising since time immoral.
|
| It's similar to the question of why flies lay millions of eggs.
| morpheos137 wrote:
| It's not strange. It's about power and control. Google and the
| other big names could care less about user satisfaction: their
| customers are the ad buyers.
|
| It's too bad because even 10 years ago Google and the internet
| in general were magical. You could find information on any
| topic, make connections and change your life. Now it is mostly
| santized dumbed down crap and the discovery of anything special
| is hidden under mountains of SEO spam, now even AI generated
| SEO spam that is transparently crap for any moderately
| intelligent user.
|
| For a specific example I like to watch wildlife videos and
| specifically ones that give insight to how animal think and
| process the world. This comparative psychology can help us
| better understand ourselves.
|
| If you want to watch Macaque monkeys for example google/youtube
| feeds you almost exclusively SEO videos from a handful of
| locations in Cambodia. There are plenty of other videos out
| there but they are hidden by the mass produced videos out of
| Cambodia.
|
| If I find an interesting video and my view history is off the
| same video is often undiscoverable again even with the exact
| same search terms.
|
| Search terms are disregarded or substituted willy nilly by
| Google AI who thinks it knows better what I want than myself.
|
| But the most egregious thing for me as a viewer of nature
| videos is the AI generated content. It is obviously CGI and
| often ridiculous or physically impossible. For example let's
| say I want to see how a monkey interacts with a predatory
| python, I am allowed to watch that right??? Or are all the
| Serengeti lion hunting gazel videos to be banned in 2025? Lol.
| So I search "python attacks monkey" hoping to see a video in
| the natural setting. Instead I am greeted with maybe a handful
| of badly shot videos probably staged by humans and hundreds of
| CGI cartoons that are obviously not real. In one the monkey had
| a snake mouth! Lol. Who goes searching for real nature videos
| to see badly faked stuff?
|
| Because of how I can not find anything on google or Youtube
| anymore without picking through a mountain of crap I use them
| less now. This is for almost any kind of topic not just nature
| videos.
|
| Is that a win for advertisers? Less use? I don't think so.
|
| In about 20 years of using the product the number of times a
| google or Youtube search has led to me actually purchasing a
| product or service DUE to an ad I saw, is I believe precisely
| zero.
|
| Recently I have been seeing Temu (zero interest), disability
| fraud (how is this allowed), senior, and facebook ads. I am a
| non disabled, 30 something man. I saw an ad for burial
| insurance today.
|
| Why is facebook paying to advertise "facebook" on youtube in
| 2025? Is this some ritual sacrifice to the god Mammon or
| something? Surely in 2025 everyone who would be interested in
| Facebook has heard of it. I have the Facebook app installed.
| Why the hell do facebook investors stand facebook paying google
| to advertise facebook non-selectively on youtube. It's the
| stupidest thing I ever saw.
|
| I have not watched any political content in years. And yet when
| I search for a wild life video I get mountains of videos about
| Trump and a handful of mass produced low quality wildlife
| content interspersed.
|
| Today I was treated to an irrelevant ad about "jowl reduction."
|
| I know many of you use ad blockers but this is how horrendous
| it is without them. You can't find what you want, even what you
| just saw, and you are treated to a deluge of irrelevant,
| obnoxious content and ads.
|
| Clearly it is about social control, turning our minds to mush
| to better serve us even more terrible ad content.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Almost makes me think curated TV will come back, even if all
| streamed. Real humans with reputations, and ensuring no
| fakery.
|
| And a vast decline in youtube.
| autoexec wrote:
| That's every streaming service right now. Netflix hides all
| kinds of things they have on offer from you because they've
| already decided what they want you to watch and they'll
| push it at you over and over again while keeping other
| content hidden unless you explicitly search for it.
|
| We have curated TV now, but just like before the people
| doing the curation aren't doing it based on what's good for
| you, the viewer. It's based on what will benefit their
| bottom line.
|
| The things we try to resort to in order to figure out what
| to spend our time watching like review sites and social
| media are already gamed and astroturfed to death. Each new
| one that comes out gets less useful as time goes on because
| of it.
|
| Good luck finding the real humans online among the
| countless AI generated curators PR firms churn out.
| autoexec wrote:
| One of the fun things about surveillance capitalism is that
| you can't correct errors in any of the millions of
| assumptions being made about you based on any number of tiny
| details collected about your life.
|
| Sounds like somebody somewhere thinks that you're old, or
| that you know an old person. Maybe you live in an area with
| lots of old people. Maybe you've got aging parents. Maybe an
| old person had your IP before you did. Maybe just the fact
| that you're still using facebook is good enough to identify
| someone as being old the majority of the time.
| araes wrote:
| Similar result, maybe not quite so illustrative, perhaps more
| colorful, just involving images not videos. Ended up at a
| similar conclusion.
|
| Tried to search user interface design for an ongoing project,
| and found that Google now simply ignores filtering
| attempts... Try to find ideas about multi-color designs, and
| all there is are endless image spam sites and Letterman style
| Top 10 lists. Try to filter those out, and Google just
| ignores many attempts.
|
| There's so many, that even those that actually do get
| successfully filtered out, only reveal the next layer of
| slime to dig through. Maybe the people that didn't pay enough
| for placement?
|
| Huge majority, far and away, where the "Alamy",
| "Shutterstock", "_____Stock", ect... photos websites. There's
| so many it's not really practical to notch filter. Anything
| involving images. Spend all day just trying to notch filter
| through "_____Stock" results to get to something real.
|
| The worst though, was that even among sites that wrote
| something, there was almost nothing that was actually "user
| interfaces" or anything related to design, other than
| simplistic sites like "top 10 colors for your next design"
| that are easy to churn out.
|
| Try to search on a different subject and filter for only
| recent results from 2024, get results from 2015, 2016.
| Difficult to tell if the subject had simply collapsed in the
| intervening 10 years (seemed unlikely) or if Google was
| completely ignoring the filters applied. The results did not
| substantially change. It's like existing in an echo chamber
| where you're shown what you're supposed to view. It all feels
| very 1984 lately.
|
| Basically ended up at the same conclusion: their customers
| are the ad buyers. They don't get enough money from "normal"
| people to care.
| bobxmax wrote:
| Billions of dollars are being spent on very useful AI.
|
| You just notice the shitty ones, but people on HN thinks that's
| the norm for some reason.
| timewizard wrote:
| Is the "useful AI" technology any different from this slop?
| If not then I fear that's wasted money as well. Which I think
| is the reason this stuff keeps getting shoehorned in. They
| invested money in training and equipment all of which is
| depreciating far faster than it has returned value.
|
| I strongly doubt this "dichotomy AI" theory.
| bobxmax wrote:
| That's demonstrably false unless you believe millions of
| people are spending their own money every month for useless
| tech.
|
| I don't know how a thinking person can use this technology
| and not see the possibilities it opens up.
| timewizard wrote:
| > unless you believe millions of people are spending
| their own money every month for useless tech.
|
| Your premise is wrong. You assume these people are
| spending money creating useful output or would otherwise
| understand and be able to implement a more efficient
| means on their own. In the words of David Graeber a lot
| of people have bullshit jobs, are you sure the "AI" isn't
| alleviating some other problem for them?
|
| > and not see the possibilities it opens up.
|
| The current technology has no natural exponential growth
| curve. Which means for a linear increase in spending you
| get a linear increase in accuracy. Any thinking person
| should see where this is going. Which is why you should
| call these LLMs so you don't accidentally fool yourself.
|
| I mean, of course, when AGI does arrive and has a
| reasonable power budget, then we're talking. The current
| technology will never become this or anything like this.
| This will almost certainly lead to a new "AI winter"
| before AGI happens and will likewise almost certainly not
| occur during yours or my lifetime.
|
| If you do believe that then I have a self driving battery
| powered semi to sell you that's fully autonomous and will
| run road cargo trains for you all day and night for huge
| profits.
| gloosx wrote:
| >unless you believe millions of people are spending their
| own money every month for useless tech
|
| that's a hot take! A classic "Eat shit! A million flies
| can't be wrong.". really made me smile :)
|
| BILLIONS of people are spending their own money for
| useless tech, simply because they fear of missing out.
|
| Thinking person can see it is generating text from the
| input query - which is useful of course - but not
| _dramatically_ useful
| CountHackulus wrote:
| Any useful AI I've seen isn't branded as "AI", it's just a
| product that doesn't mention how it works.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| You might've been... slightly... more convincing if you had
| any sources to back that _absolutely wild_ claim up.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I am totally in the same boat but also I do suspect it is a
| minority. It's the same way that some people really want open
| source bootloaders, but 99.99% of people do not care at all.
| Maybe AI assistants in random places just aren't that
| compatible with people on HN but are possibly useful for a lot
| of people not on HN?
| fouronnes3 wrote:
| I agree with this. I'm very surprised when I see someone
| blindly trust whatever the AI summary says in a google query,
| because I myself have internalized a long time ago to
| strongly distrust it.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| To me it looks like for most things I search it just
| verbatim is the top answer from Stack Overflow.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I've seen quite a few posts on Reddit with people asking
| questions like "Is a Mazda 2 really faster than a Civic
| Type R?!? ChatGPT told me it is" and it's some complete
| nonsense numbers that could've been fact checked in about 5
| seconds.
|
| I don't think the little "ChatGPT might be wrong, you
| should check" disclaimer is doing very much.
| autoexec wrote:
| It's a good sign that people are even going to reddit and
| asking for confirmation of something that seemed
| suspicious to them. Sure, many of them could have googled
| for those answers themselves, but part of the problem is
| how unreliable and dishonest Google has become.
|
| Reddit sure isn't an ideal place for fact checks. It's
| full of PR bots and shills, but at least there are still
| humans commenting and I can't fault people for doing what
| they can in the best way they know how.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| For every person that asks I imagine there are a bunch
| that just assume it must be true because the computer
| told them
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Or they could have just use ChstGPT and typed "provide
| citations...
|
| https://chatgpt.com/share/679d7f5f-d508-8010-94fa-
| df9d554b62...
|
| (and then I just remembered that the free version doesn't
| have web search)
| autoexec wrote:
| > It's the same way that some people really want open source
| bootloaders, but 99.99% of people do not care at all.
|
| In fairness to the 99.99% they don't even know what a
| bootloader is and if they understood the situation and the
| risks many of them would also favor an open option.
|
| I don't think the rejection of AI is primarily a HN thing
| though. It's my non-tech friends and family who have been
| most vocal in complaining about it. The folks here are more
| likely to have browser extensions and other workarounds or
| know about alternative services that don't force AI on you in
| the first place.
| DavidPiper wrote:
| > In fairness to the 99.99% they don't even know what a
| bootloader is
|
| True. And awareness and education is very important for
| useful discourse.
|
| > if they understood the situation and the risks many of
| them would also favor an open option.
|
| Raising my hand as one of those people who knows what a
| bootloader is and also doesn't currently care about an open
| option. Maybe at some time in the future I will again, but
| for now it is very far down on my list of concerns.
|
| I suspect whether or not AI is useful/high-
| quality/"good"/etc is just not important to most poeple at
| the moment. If they are laid off from their jobs in the
| future and replaced with an AI, I suspect they'll start
| caring more.
|
| But in the general case, I've found "caring ahead-of-time"
| (for want of a better phrase) is a very hard thing to
| encourage, despite the fact that it's one of the most
| effective things you can do if you direct it at the "right"
| avenues (i.e. those that will affect you directly in the
| future).
| Retric wrote:
| > one of the most effective things you can do if you
| direct it in the "right" avenues
|
| The people I know who "worry" are terrible about
| predicting negative events that impact them. I think
| that's why it's uncommon, lots of negative health
| outcomes and almost zero actual benefits.
|
| Instead simply aiming for reasonable levels of resiliency
| in health, finances, etc tends to cover a huge range of
| issues. In that context having a preference for open
| systems makes a lot of sense, but focusing a lot of
| effort on it doesn't.
| mattpallissard wrote:
| I think this is the case. Most of my family and friends use
| and like the various AI features that are popping up but
| aren't interested thinking about how to coax what they want
| out of ChatGPT or Claude.
|
| When it's integrated into a product people are more likely to
| use it. Lowering the barrier to entry so to speak.
| not2b wrote:
| I don't think so. I have many nontechnical friends who are
| furious at having to deal with bad AI, whether it's a stupid
| chatbot that they have to talk to instead of a real person or
| Google "AI overviews" that often get things completely wrong.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| AI confidence has been dwindling[0][1] so I don't think
| that's the biggest contributor.
|
| I do think it's as simple as appealing to stakeholders in
| whatever way they can, regardless of customer satisfaction.
| As we've seen as of late, the stock markets are completely
| antithetical to the improvement of people's lives.
|
| The first point does indeed come into play because oftentimes
| most people don't throw enough of a fuss against it. But
| everything has some breaking point; Microsoft's horribly
| launched Copilot for Office 365 showed one of them
|
| [0]: https://www.warc.com/content/feed/ai-is-a-turn-off-for-
| consu...
|
| [1]: https://hbr.org/2025/01/research-consumers-dont-want-ai-
| to-s...
| rendaw wrote:
| I agree, but doesn't that basically mean there are two camps:
| people who dislike it, and people who don't care? I also
| agree with GP in that there isn't any visible 3rd camp:
| people who want it. If google themselves thought people
| wanted this, they wouldn't need to make an un-dismissable
| popup in all of their products with one button, "yes please
| enable gemini for me", in order for people to use it.
|
| I'm sure google thinks that people have some sort of bias,
| and that if they force people to use it they'll come to like
| it (just like google plus), but this also shows how much
| google looks down on the free will of its users.
| nearbuy wrote:
| No, I like the AI summaries and I had assumed I was in the
| silent majority. People like convenience and it usually
| answers correctly.
| cheese_van wrote:
| <Maybe AI assistants in random places just aren't that
| compatible with people on HN but are possibly useful for a
| lot of people not on HN?>
|
| Coincidentally today, I received an automated text from my
| heath care entity along the lines of, "Please recognize this
| number as from us. Our AI will be calling you to discuss your
| heath."
|
| No. I'm not going to have a personal discussion with an AI.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| It's not even remotely a minority. It was widely mocked
| everywhere when they first debuted it:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/1czcjze/how_is_ai_o.
| ..
|
| Mainstream press have been covering how much people hate it -
| people's _grandparents_ are getting annoyed by it. Worse, it
| comes on the heels of four years of Prabhakar Raghavan
| ruining Google Search for the sake of trying to pump ad
| revenue.
|
| It's a steaming pile of dogshit that either provides useless
| information unrelated to what you searched for and is just
| another thing to scroll past, and even worse, provides
| _completely wrong_ information half the time, which means
| even if the response seems to be what you asked, it 's still
| useless because you can't trust it.
| 3dsnano wrote:
| at work i've been tasked with "developing AI use cases" to add
| on to our product.
|
| we still don't know what problems to solve, but we're gonna use
| AI to help us figure that out.
|
| once we do, it's gonna be huge. this AI stuff is going to
| change everything!!!
| animitronix wrote:
| Reminds me of 3d tv and AR glasses
| callamdelaney wrote:
| Moved from android to iOS to get rid of the ceaseless 'please
| use our assistant' nagging.
| bbarnett wrote:
| I was going to buy a pixel 9 fold, but I literally have no
| idea why I should.
|
| All the ad talked about was AI, nothing about specs, and
| barely a whisper of how it works, or even good demos of apps
| switching between open and closed.
|
| Every phone has AI now, big deal. How about you tell me,
| Google, what is cool about the fold, instead of talking for 4
| minutes about AI?!
| gosub100 wrote:
| I'll repeat my favorite quote about it (paraphrased and read it
| here first but don't recall the attribution): AI can copy a
| song, tell me a joke, predict what I buy, but I still have to
| do my own dishes.
|
| If AI (or any tech) could clean, do dishes, or cook (which is
| not a chore for many, I acknowledge that) it could potentially
| bring families together and improve the quality of peoples
| lives.
|
| Instead they are introducing it as a tool to replace jobs,
| think for us, and mistrust each other ("you sound like an AI
| bot!/you just copied that from chatgpt! You didn't draw that!
| How do I know you're real?"
|
| I don't know if they really thought through to an endgame,
| honestly. How much decimation can you inflict on the economy
| before the snake eats its own tail?
| bbarnett wrote:
| 2030 at the latest. LLM androids(robots).
| gosub100 wrote:
| I would be fine with cheating and embedding magnets in the
| plates or having a special track that fits the plate to the
| sink. But I find it pathetic that this problem hasn't been
| solved yet. No one likes doing dishes.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Well, dishwashers are enough to remove lots of the work.
| And they can dry the dishes too.
|
| So it's a lower bar, there's a partial solution.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > LLM androids
|
| They'll make you the perfect pizza with cheese that doesn't
| slide off because of the glue.
|
| But seriously, I predict inadvisably-applied LLMs are going
| to eventually end up somewhere between the mistakes of
| Juicero and the mistakes of leaded gasoline.
| huhkerrf wrote:
| It's "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do
| art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that
| I can do my laundry and dishes."
|
| Which is a stupid argument, since there is "any tech" that
| can do your laundry and dishes, and it's been around for
| decades! Is it too hard for you to put your dishes in the
| dishwasher, or your clothes in the washing machine?
|
| And I say this as someone bearish on AI.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Is it too hard for you to put your dishes in the
| dishwasher, or your clothes in the washing machine?
|
| Is it "too hard"? No. Is it a substantial time sink, and
| one that (in the case of laundry, particularly) breaks up
| flow, so that it is inconvenient for someone who has to
| deal with $DAYJOB and those chores and wants to do art and
| writing (or other personal projects that take focus)? Yes.
| kristopolous wrote:
| At my company we have a live service chat feature. Recently
| some of our customers have been requesting an AI chatbot
| support (we've got fairly technical product offerings). I'm
| guessing they want to ask a bunch of stupid questions.
|
| I'm surprised as well. Some people want it
| autoexec wrote:
| the only reasons i can imagine that a customer would want to
| use an AI chatbot for support instead of chatting with a
| person is either because they don't currently have the option
| to chat with a person 24/7 at all (AI is better than no chat
| support), or their experience with human chat support has
| been terrible (long wait times, slow responses, unhelpful
| agents, annoying language barriers, responses so unnatural
| and overly scripted that they might as well be bots, etc).
|
| There's nothing AI brings to the table that a competent human
| wouldn't, with the added benefit that you don't have to worry
| about AI making things up or not understanding you.
|
| Or maybe they just want to try and convince the AI to give
| them things you wouldn't (https://arstechnica.com/tech-
| policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-...)
| kristopolous wrote:
| I dunno. Sarah Connor explained it pretty nicely in the 90s
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tksN5Jaan9E
|
| Kinda on the nose
| djur wrote:
| I agree, although "competent human" is not really the bar
| when we're talking about actually existing phone support. A
| while back I was trying to solve an issue with Verizon and
| calling three separate times I got three completely
| different approaches to solving my problem, all three of
| which were totally incorrect. (And the correct solution was
| literally just "go to this URL and fill out a form".) At
| least one of those people gave me advice that would have
| put me in legal hot water. It was rough.
| karaterobot wrote:
| Adding unwanted features, bolting on an AI assistant, changing
| to a subscription model, and even automating away employees can
| all be explained by the following iron rule: C-level leadership
| lives in abject terror of the numbers not going up anymore.
| Even if a product is perfect, and everyone who needs it owns
| it, and it needs no improvement, they must still find a way
| make the numbers go up. Always. So, they'll grab hold of any
| trend which, in their panic, seems like it might be a possible
| life preserver.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| What choice does Google have? Google search is such a shit show
| now that I use ChatGPT to do any complicated web search. The
| paid version has had web search for over two years now.
|
| Google couldn't just keep ignoring it. I do wish it were an
| option instead of on by default - except for searches they can
| monetize
| notpushkin wrote:
| Could they... improve their search results?
| ikt wrote:
| how does chatgpt paid compare to perplexity.ai ?
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I just used perplexity.ai. The interface is janky and it
| looks like it just does search.
|
| ChatGPT has image generation, you can upload word docs,
| images and PDFs and it has a built in Python runtime that
| it uses to offload math problems to.
| nonchalantsui wrote:
| Marc Andreessen stated on twitter that was a core reason for
| why he likes AI, to drive down wages (which in his words "must
| crash").
|
| So you are not far off from that concept of putting vast
| numbers of employees out of work, when influential figures like
| Andressen are openly stating that is their ambitions.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| And Larry Ellison wants us all under the eye of AI cameras so
| that "citizens will be on their best behavior". I almost used
| the word "panopticon" there, but Ellison is proposing
| something strictly worse, in that there's no hope of the
| cameras not being watched.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > people start looking for a way to get rid of it
|
| I would bet money that the majority of users do not actually
| feel this way.
| Larrikin wrote:
| I work on a project where customers need to fill out a form to
| receive help. We introduced an AI chat bot to help them do the
| form by just talking through the problem and answering
| questions. Then the form is filled out for the customer for
| them to review before submitting.
|
| Personally I find it slower than just doing it manually but it
| has resulted in the form being correct more often now and has a
| lot of usage. There is also a big button when the chat opens
| that you can click to just fill it out manually.
|
| It has its place, that place just isn't everywhere and the only
| option.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| I did a project a while back that created a wizard to fill in
| a form - I also found it much easier to simply complete the
| form, but when we demonstrated it to target users they nearly
| cried with relief. It was a good reminder of the importance
| of knowing what users actually want.
|
| I should go back to look at that and see if we could
| incorporate an easy ChatBot as an improvement.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| I'm sure there's a time and place for these things, but this
| sounds very much like the echo chamber I hear at work all the
| time.
|
| Someone has a 'friend' who has a totally-not-publically-
| visible form where a chat bot interacts with the form and
| helps the user fill the form in.
|
| ...and users love it.
|
| However, when _really_ pressed, I 've yet to encounter
| someone who can actually tell me _specifically_
|
| 1) What form it is (i.e. can I see it?)
|
| 2) How much effort it was to build that feature.
|
| ...because, the problem with this story is that what you're
| describing is a pretty hard problem to solve:
|
| - An agent interacts with a user.
|
| - The agent has free reign to fill out the form fields.
|
| - Guided by the user, the agent helps will out form fields in
| a way which is both faster and more accurate than users
| typing into the field themselves.
|
| - At any time the user can opt to stop interacting with the
| the agent and fill in the fields and the agent must
| understand what's happened independently of the chat context.
| i.e. The form state has to be part of the chat bot's context.
|
| - At the end, the details filled in by the agent are
| distinguished from user inputs for user review.
|
| It's not a trivial problem. It sounds like a trivial problem;
| the agent asks 'what sort of user are you?' and parses the
| answer into one of three enum values; Client, Foo, Bar -> and
| sets the field 'user type' to the value via a custom hook.
|
| However, when you try to actually build such a system (as I
| have), then there are a lot of complicated edge cases, and
| users _HATE_ it when the bot does the wrong thing, especially
| when they 're primed to click 'that looks good to me' without
| actually reading what the agent did.
|
| So.
|
| Can you share an example?
|
| What does 'and has a lot of usage' mean in this context? Has
| it _increased_ the number of people filling in the form, or
| completing it correctly (or both?) ?
|
| I'd love to see one that users like, because, oh boy, did
| they _HATE_ the one we built.
|
| At the end of the day, smart validation hints on form input
| fields are a lot of easier to implement, and are well
| understood by users of all types in my experience; it's just
| generally a better, normal way of improving form conversion
| rates which is well documented, understood and measurable
| using analytics.
|
| ...unless you specifically need to add "uses AI" to your
| slide deck for your next round of funding.
| toss1 wrote:
| Yet, some analysts claim the fact that people nevertheless use
| these awful choices means they like them despite their frequent
| complaints.
|
| They cite "Revealed Choice", which may apply when there is an
| actual choice.
|
| But in the nearly winner-take-all dynamic of digital services,
| when the few oligopolistic market leaders present nearly
| identical choices, the actual usage pattern reveals only that a
| few bad choices are just barely worse than chucking the whole
| thing.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| Correction: That some subset of the people you mostly meet
| online tries to get rid off.
|
| You'd be surprised how many don't even realize it's artificial,
| and/or welcome it. The average Google user is most certainly
| not similar to the average Hacker News commenter.
| bradgessler wrote:
| There's been several products where I want to pay to disable
| certain features--especially AI features.
| gessha wrote:
| > hopes that it will soon put vast numbers of employees out of
| work and allow companies to use the massive amounts of data
| they've collected about us against us more effectively.
|
| They already fired so many developers and this feels more like
| a Hail Mary before maintenance costs and tech debt start
| catching up to you.
| hulitu wrote:
| > At this point I'm convinced that the endless AI hype and all
| the investment is purely due to hopes that it will soon put
| vast numbers of employees out of work
|
| no. On the contrary. We will need people to clean the mess left
| by AI
|
| > and allow companies to use the massive amounts of data
| they've collected about us against us more effectively.
|
| yes.
| adra wrote:
| There is also an Adblock plus filter to stop the AI from ever
| showing up. Can't remember what it was at the moment, but it
| worked great.
| metabagel wrote:
| Unrelated, but I just found out that Kagi will produce (AI
| generated) "quick answers" if you end your query with a question
| mark.
| russellbeattie wrote:
| So much overreaction to this feature. You can turn it off, just
| look for it.
|
| I think the AI summaries are super useful. 90% of the time it
| answers the question I have accurately and concisely, saving me
| time and effort.
|
| The paragraph summaries give me a good overview of a topic, and
| the links to the original sources save me from scanning through
| tons of websites looking for details.
|
| I never fully trust the AI summary, it's just a better way to
| look for information. I click on the reference link often to
| double check the source and the accuracy of the summary. I think
| I've only discovered a discrepancy once or twice.
|
| Google isn't a utility, if you don't like Gemini, go use DDG or
| Bing.
| wruza wrote:
| Real hackers add &udm=
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Wow what a great technological society we've built
| Reason077 wrote:
| I neutralise the AI summaries by adding the following rules in
| AdGuard for Safari: google.com###m-x-content
| google.com###B2Jtyd
|
| Add this to AdGuard Preferences -> Filters -> User Rules. It
| makes search results load faster too!
| vzaliva wrote:
| somebody should make a browser plugin which add expletive to each
| google search :)
| tashian wrote:
| or to hide the AI content areas
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| You can also append `&udm=14` to the end of your search url and
| the AI summary will go away.
|
| If someone hasn't already made a userscript to do this
| automatically, someone should, it would be very easy.
| miningape wrote:
| It can also be added to the default search URL in your browser
| (usually they replace %s with the search query)
| babymetal wrote:
| Thank you. Showing tidbits like this from HN to my kids has
| seemed to help guide them to be be more curious and creative in
| how they use the internet, instead of treating it like a
| magical black box.
| ZhiqiangWang wrote:
| I think in a few years we will be laughing at all those anti-
| trust cases against Google since web search business will no
| longer be relevant
| nejsjsjsbsb wrote:
| If I had do that then I will DDG or something. Or is there a user
| script to hide the AI?
| imchillyb wrote:
| The technologically inclined will persist in pushing back against
| egregious changes in their daily routine.
|
| The technologically disinclined or illiterate will continue to be
| oblivious, and simply use whatever is placed before them.
|
| If this were not true, then app stores wouldn't have so much
| malware easily available to the masses. It wouldn't be profitable
| to release such things. It is profitable.
|
| The masses will continue to amass stupidity as a miser amasses
| coin.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| What amazes me about Google's AI results is how often they are
| blatantly incorrect. I think most of us here on HN are above
| average in terms of critical thinking, but I often think to
| myself how many people are seeing these results, taking it as
| truth, and walking away that much dumber or worse - spreading
| this misinformation among their friends and colleagues. Google
| could not care less. They just want to defeat the threat from
| other LLMs.
| blibble wrote:
| remember to upvote the bad ones so it gets worse!
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| You can just disable it on the settings?
| taylorius wrote:
| Is there nothing that word can't do?
| dwoldrich wrote:
| I like the DDG Assist button. I think there are non-obtrusive
| ways to incorporate AI in search.
| have-a-break wrote:
| Easiest way to deal with hospital staff spamming "this person
| needs an IOP".
| buybackoff wrote:
| Just use this https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14 as the
| default browser engine. See also https://udm14.com/.
|
| I was late to this, but G's default search had been becoming
| worse and worse. The trick is equivalent to clicking the "Web"
| tab when you do default search. In 99.9% cases the "Web" tab is
| what I need, it's pure and no noise. I do not mind clicking the
| "All" tab e.g. for a tennis player last name during AO to get all
| details I need. Actually, for sport events the default G's
| functionality is insanely useful, such as live score updates.
| sexy_seedbox wrote:
| Is this what big tech has come to?
| Dansvidania wrote:
| Anyone still using Google search here on HN? Genuinely curious no
| /s
| skeptrune wrote:
| AI is over-hyped to a surreal extent. If people aren't looking
| for help generating text, don't generate text for them. We don't
| need to stuff it into every possible UX available.
| cjtrowbridge wrote:
| Lmao
| iamkp1 wrote:
| Fear is .. Going forward AI will be used for automated reviews
| and ratings.. imagine your next purchase in any of the online
| store or a restaurant.. you will notice 4.7 or 4.5 ratings with
| tons of good reviews.. as good a s real a human reviews..
|
| So get fooled in future with AI..
| iamkp1 wrote:
| Indirectly direct effect... In near future we may see reviews and
| ratings generated and posted automatically by AI agents .. we
| would get fooled with 4.7 or 4.5 rating with interesting reviews,
| all auto posted by AI agents .. means we will get affected
| directly due to this process, a smart tech-nerd differentiate
| this but 99.99% common man cant make out and going to fail 90%
| times in his decisions.
|
| Things will benefit with AI.. But more things will get screwed by
| too.
| cbar_tx wrote:
| or stop using google search
| cbar_tx wrote:
| or stop using google search. the idea that reliable search
| results are exclusive to google is a delusional lie that lazy
| people tell themselves, hoping everyone else will believe it too.
| j45 wrote:
| Reading this headline made me think, there should be voting for
| most useful headline of the year.
| seventytwo wrote:
| Just use Kagi
| DonHopkins wrote:
| What if you're searching for fucking, but DO want the AI
| summaries?
| pknerd wrote:
| INterestingly, my ISP(Pakistan Telecom) blocked the website
| because it contains the F* word
| pknerd wrote:
| It seems you do not need to swear
|
| I did an experiment, I am not sure such but so far it is working
|
| <YourKeyword> -Gemini
|
| for example: Object Oriented Programming -Gemini
|
| I did a few searches and it is working so far.
| est wrote:
| Or don't use google at all.
|
| It's a bloated service run by an advertising corp.
| dotcoma wrote:
| Progress never stops! ;)
| eimrine wrote:
| The advice has made my day, I have found some oldschool 20yo
| forum on the topic I really appreciate and thought I have read
| everything about it. Shame on you Googlag that you pessimize that
| old resources.
| joduplessis wrote:
| Actually makes the results fairly interesting too. :)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-01 08:01 UTC)