Im not making that assumption at all.
Fizz
joined 3 years ago
I checked again to get a more up to date report and so that we actually have something to go off instead of my memory of some random reports. Pew finds 50% of people use chatbots and the most common use is searching for information. Also in the report the have a stat for reading AI summaries at the top of a search and that is 60% say that have, 10% dont know and 30% dont read it. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-and-ai-2026-chatbots-smart-devices-and-views-on-impact/
So its fair to say I was wrong and its not over 50% but its close to 50%.
None of what ive said is AI generated. You're just a moron.
Do you think its because there is a lot more spam and SEO than 10 years ago or do you think google is actively doing something to remove relevant results from searches?
People have said that and ive read a few studies. Its a truism because the search quality degraded but mostly due to SEO and link spam. If someone wants to post actual evidence of google "actively making search worse" I'd love to read it. So far i only saw that it was due to SEO spam which affects all search providers. While people here are trying to claim it was done nefariously to force people towards AI.
I dont think AI summary is ever going to be something people NEED. In most cases its better and it will cover majority of searches but its unlikely to cover 100% of cases. You will always need to be able to find things on the web like links.
AI in other areas its not even looking bad for workers. Its largely overhyped from what I see. Programming seems the most useful field but even then its like x0.1 or x0.2 boost in efficiency. This year it got much better. Maybe things will change next year I'll have to see.
You can't discuss it because you have no coherent reasoning behind why you arrived at your position. You are a reactionary who knows very little and parrots what you hear.
If you dont want to use AI fine but you're wasting your time trying to discuss it when you have nothing about it to discuss. This is a technology community not an anti AI schzio ranting community.
Make the argument as to why its not suitable.
No these are not reports that count someone viewing an AI summary on google as using AI for search.
Most news isnt static. Its an app and its a link embedded in an app. Blogs are not popular or relevant so idk why we are even talking about them. Substack has most of the market and its not a static site.
Ecommerce could not be static without major regressions to usablity.
I do live in a place with fast internet but we are talking about future and I think its stupid to build a future web for people who have slow internet when all the trends point to increasing internet speeds and connection around the world. I'm sure Africa doesnt want to finally get online and see everything be a static site.
You can run discord off a mobile data connection, when Africa builds out their Internet infra they will prefer services like discord over low bandwidth stripped down barebones services.
the future web doesnt need to care about a 1mb page or a 10mb page. It only matters what you can do. Static site can do very little. You can't have Lemmy as static site and Lemmy is an example of what I think future web could be. Open, interconnected, full of features and QoL. Lemmy gives you the things reddit tries to sell you.
You can still search on search engines some searches dont even have any ads. So what feature was removed? They actively started showing worse results ok what did they do?
Search engines still search same as they did in the 2010s. They have had ads for decades. It hasnt increased you search you see an ad or two or even none.
Your replies are equivalent to AI slop. If you are going to write something please at least think about what you are writing.
How is a summary at the top of the page different from the first result? If you are fine with the first result being incorrect I dont see why you wouldnt also accept the summary to be sometimes wrong. There are still 10 results for you to pick from and infinite pages to scroll through.
If it depends on the confidence do you need them to put a disclaimer? If I'm looking for something important I'm going to actual documentation and skipping the summary even when its correct. But if I'm just searching for something low stakes and the summary answers my question I am happy to not dig any further and I consider it to be an improvement on the search experience.
These days its pretty accurate. I rarely come across a summary thats incorrect. Mostly I see incorrect summaries on searches where i already know I'm going to get a lot of wrong answers and have to sift through sites and old posts.
Yes that is a good sample size but its biased by the people weighing in caring most about the issue. If it was 175000 users sampled randomly from the DDG user base then yes it would be a good predictor but it wasnt.