this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
263 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
82830 readers
4041 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fewer people using Google
No, fewer people getting past the AI summary
Given the state of a lot of the summaries I've seen lately, that is scary.
Holdup, are people not skipping the AI summaries entirely because the info is fucking shit?
You forget we are in an echo chamber here. Most people not only read the AI summaries, they believe them. Just the other day I saw a normie ask ChatGPT to add up some numbers for them, instead of using a calculator. That's how entrenched AI has become in their day-to-day. They don't have to think any more. Thinking is hard. And that's how Google is able to dominate the web. Steal the data and serve it up as slop that's good enough for the everyday Joe.
Is that what this is saying? I wasn't sure. The article should state that explicitly, and not assume that the reader concludes that.
I think the issue there is the data doesn't tell anyone "why", it only tells "what".
Hard to imagine usage of Google suddenly falling by 22%, much less 60%.
Good news, though, is if Google stops bringing in traffic to sites, they'll block its bots, so both search and Gemini will become even worse, possibly turning people away.
This is actually a good thing. Google get paid for referrals and niw their "AI" shit turns against it.
This just forces people to turn to Google Ads. They will actually make more money from people because it kills off little businesses that can’t pay and jacks up competition/pricing for ad bids.
What are you talking about?
Companies pay Google to be at the top of the list and get clicks
Companies pay for google to show up high in search results. Some of them pay from clicks.
Now people stop at the slop which is the first thing thry see in the results.
This makes traffic to company sites go down which also affects google revenue.
Do you mean the ads? Or, if you mean the search results themselves, where do I pay Google to get my site higher in the results?
The only use I have found for the AI summary is quickly getting NAIC numbers for insurance companies at work. Otherwise I use an extension that removes the AI summary.
Are those results correct, though?
They actually are surprisingly.
Which is probably enough to find the info 90% of the time
I have classic apple computers.
I also maintain a small list of sites I visit to get abandonware programs for them. Of the times I've used the AI results, I found what I was looking for fewer than 15%. At one point, I had the AI telling me there was no such thing as Winamp for Mac, while I was running it in MacOS 8.6 under the virtualization program, Sheepshaver.
Seriously?
AI's got so little ability to sort through archived knowledge and pull up old links and sources, it's as if anything before 2006 never existed.
Nuts to that.
I hit up ten blue links and have never looked back.
But did a regular search provide the correct info? I find niche searches aren’t always good using either method. Old software info can be hard to find.
Yes! I wasn't looking for whether it existed, I knew it did, but it was in a .sit file with an abbreviated name. Also apparently was an aplha build, so maybe that's why the AI insisted it did not exist. Was looking for the last version available for the classic OS as I had one of the earliest.
this is problematic on multiple levels.
Name 3 levels
It helps spread false information widely
It puts a lot of control of information in a single companies hands
It hurts the underlying sources
When google provides the info directly, and the first hand sources has become completely obsolete and shut down, what would new information stem from? It's an inherently unstable and short sighted solution.
Google controls search results and has been caught meddling. Which negates the first two.
The last one of hurts the sources… sure they get less traffic which is less ad revenue. Cry me a river.
No it doesn't negate the forst two. It only addresses the second, and bypassing the results completely, exascerbates the problem quite a bit.
great argument.
Level one, level two, level three. WHAT NOW, BITCHES?