Headline fix: Google kills the one good thing it has going for it with AI
Search sucks for some time now. I’d say the best thing google offers today is Gmail - but there are plenty of arguments against that too.
Google Maps, their traffic data has no rivals, unlike gmail which has plenty of good competition. It’s the one thing I couldn’t easily replace yet.
I prefer OSM since I can use the maps offline. Google maps is useless out in the middle of nowhere without any cell service.
I switched away from google maps to Apple Maps a few years ago and I honestly can’t tell any difference. If google maps traffic data is better, it’s not in any noticeable kind of way for regular day to day usage.
their traffic data has no rivals
do you mean the waze traffic data, or does google actually have some of its own?
I only use google maps to find bussinesses. It’s pretty awful for navigating, which is kind of what maps are made for.
I’ll plug Mapy.cz here. I’ve been using it for about 7 years now. It has even the most obscure paths that you wouldn’t believe would be on a map (at least in Europe) and the bussiness search is alright.
No idea if it’s based on OSM or is its own thing, but if I were to guess, it is.
ProtonMail is like the best if you can get if you’re a small user that regularly cleans their inbox and keeps things that matter.
I never use more than a handful of MBs, so I find 15GB of storage that GMail offers me a bit much. It’s been this way for me for years so ProtonMail does it.
They don’t really have a choice. Classic website search will be useless in the near future because of the rapid rise of LLM-generated pages. Already for some searches 1 out of 3 results is generated crap.
Their only hope it’s that somehow they’ll be able to weed out LLM pages with LLM. Which is something that scientists say it’s impossible because LLMs cannot learn from LLM results so they won’t be able to reliably tell which content is good.
The fact they’re even trying this shows they’re desperate, so they will try.
Do you have a source for those scientists you’re referring to?
I know that LLMs can be trained on data output by other LLMs, but you’re basically diluting your results unless you do a lot of work to clean up the data.
I wouldn’t say it’s “impossible” to determine if content was generated by an LLM, but I agree that it will not be reliable.
Well, it’s not exactly impossible because of that, it’s just unlikely they’ll use a discriminator for the task because great part of generated content is effectively indistinguishable from human-written content - either because the model was prompted to avoid “LLM speak”, or because the text was heavily edited. Thus they’d risk a high false positive rate.
So far I’m mostly unaffected by this. That’s probably because I usually internet mostly for niche hobbies and occasionally practical things and shopping. Like apartment hunting, since the industry is too spread out for anybody to get in bed with Google enough to get a big boost up the AI idiocy. Except maybe apartments.com, but that’s where I’ve always ended up anyway even back before Google’s enshitification.
Google search is still a very shitty product right now. In a blind test I would never conclude they are the market leader. It used to work a few years ago though.
Indeed. They started pushing things that make them profit before the things that you’re searching for. They love the revenue stream but are realizing now that it’s also killing their main product: googling.
But if they’re moving to AI it will probably be the same, trying to guide you into selling something instead of giving what you want. Microsoft too is trying to paper over their os with ads so you know what direction they’re going.
This is really funny to me because Google ruined their own search engine for advertising purposes; so much so that they now need to add “AI” to it to look good and hip again. Only if the “AI” results are actually good, it will hurt their advertising revenue, and it’s not quite so simple to tweak it the same way they cooked their search algorithms to serve you more ads, plus it will burn an ungodly amount of money to process each request. And if it’s bad, they’ll have wasted billions on it and will ruin their reputation even worse.
It will not hurt their revenue. There’s no way any of these companies haven’t thought about how to increase revenue with what they’re doing.
Just because we haven’t seen how yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t planned.
And it will not cost an “ungodly amount of money” to process these requests. Ofc Google will cache answers, because alot of what people ask, are the same. Then maybe the info can be updated sometimes, but ofc they won’t do it every time.
Nah. It’s not going to be “AI.” It’s going to be YouTube results, followed by Reddit results, followed by “Sponsored” results, followed by AI-written Bot results, then a couple pages of Amazon results and finally, on page 10 or so, a ten-year-old result that’s probably no longer relevant.
Just fix google back to how it was and create an entirely new search engine with AI and call it Sairch.
Sadly, old Google doesn’t work either thanks to the efforts of SEO and the AI generated garbage.
The problem with search is that the motives of those being searched aren’t to provide you with the most helpful answer. The motives are to get you to visit their website then stay/click/buy as much as possible. They’ll tailor their content to match whatever algorithm the engine is using.
That’s why Google’s new plan is to collect all of the information ahead of time and skip the “visit other websites” step. Then you can stay/click/buy on their website as much as possible.
Seriously though. Just skip all this nonsense, you selfish piece of shit, and open your wallet so the hungry corpos can feast on its contents - they have poor, innocent, starving shareholders to feed… you monster.
I wonder how many Malaysian employees will be the brains behind this “AI” tech
