Can someone explain why the fuck Google is pushing this so hard? Generative AI is not a general intelligence, and useless for concrete facts. Google has already demonstrated how shitty it is for information, and the people with the knowledge to work on the project have to know this.
So why the fuck are they all full steam ahead on something that will always be useless for them?
Most of our search result pages feature one or more Instant Answers. To deliver Instant Answers on specific topics, DuckDuckGo leverages many sources, including specialized sources like Sportradar and crowd-sourced sites like Wikipedia. We also maintain our own crawler (DuckDuckBot) and many indexes to support our results. Of course, we have more traditional links and images in our search results too, which we largely source from Bing. Our focus is synthesizing all these sources to create a superior search experience.
Edit: That said, I’d rather use DDG than Bing because DDG eats Bing’s tracking for me, as I understand it.
Yeah, it’s not just e.g. water that is the utility, pipes and pumping stations are part of it. Otherwise you have water…uh…somewhere, go get it yourself.
Google is genuinely bad now. I switched to Ecosia which is just Bing with a simpler front end and they use their profits to plant trees. I don’t think Ecosia is particularly special though. Duck Duck Go, Bing whatever, they’re all better than Google.
Whenever I set up a new computer then search for something, I’m always surprised at first seeing the awful layout and quality of the search results before I realize that I haven’t changed the default search from Google. It’s awful now. Seriously, how are people using it?
My new favorite way to search is perplexity.ai. It’s an AI search tool that summarizes the loads of crap out there so you don’t need to read through the junk that people write. It provides sources, unlike using ChatGPT, which is incredibly valuable. All AIs make shit up, so having links to double check it is a must. Unlike Bing Chat, or whatever Microsoft calls it this week, you can ask follow up questions to home in on what you want.
I might be wrong, but they meta-search across multiple providers, including their own. The real benefit is that YOU can choose which search subjects to prioritize when trying to find something specific.
For normal search stuff, this feels like “old Google” (no ai spam). For detailed searching, its better than any other engine I’ve used.
yeah, I appreciate the push towards more privacy-centric search engines but as a result searches that are relevant to me geographically on places like startpage are next to useless. I understand why but I wish that local results were a bit better on the alternatives.
We all keep saying this but can anybody point me to which one is better?
I invariably end up having to go back to them because the other search engines all have their own problems.
The issue is the internet is polluted with SEO and all the useful things that used to be spread out are now condensed onto places like Reddit, or places that aren’t even being indexed.
Supposedly there’s a paid one that is good. I haven’t tried. The thing is Google is completely enshittified. They don’t have to care about you or the sites you search. So my theory is Bing is better because they are hungrier and anything that takes away market share from Google is good—but I’m fully aware that Microsoft was just as shitty as Google and will be again if they get back on top.
Everything else I know of is either just an alternate front end for one of them or an aggregator of both. So you’re right, there’s precious little alternative to Google. But it’s almost bad enough I’m ready for the return of web rings of good sites vouching for each other.
This is funny, but it was also 13 years ago. A lot can change in that time. I don’t personally use Bing though, so I don’t have firsthand experience either way.
A lot can change in 13 years, but a company that starts off morally evil does not magically get better as time goes on. If anything, they’re worse - we just don’t have the luxury of knowing exactly how yet.
All I’m trying to say is that they’re not necessarily doing the same thing now that they were back then. They’d have a strong motivator to be better than google nowadays instead of just copying their results because google’s results suck now.
Thankfully there are other options because you just nailed the two places I refuse to ever get gas from when there is any other option. If there was a good third option I’d take it here, but while Google commands so much market share and a new competitor would probably siphon users from Bing (and it’s not enough users) I don’t think a real alternative will come. I’m intrigued by kagi, though.
Serious question. Can you spell out for me the exact advantages you feel they provide? I have a free account, but every time I try them out I feel like their answers are honestly a little bit worse than Ecosia.
Look at twitter. Now look at mastodon. Tell me which one is more shitty. Now tell me which one has something like 85% of the market, and which one most people haven’t heard of.
Just because something it better, doesn’t mean people use it. You can fit all of Lemmy in the world in one of the larger NBA size arenas. You can’t even fit twitters total user base into some smaller CITIES.
He’s already owned it for nearly two years. I’d definitely take the over on that bet. I just don’t see what Twitter could possibly do that they haven’t done already to kill it?
At least in the UK there is now lots of mainstream discussion of “Is it time for people to leave twitter as it’s too much of a cesspool”. Granted they usually then mention threads or bluesky as an alternative not mastodon, but it is definitely possible for social media companies to die out. Once people start to leave in large numbers it can become a mass exodus (see digg and myspace).
I think the issue now is that the market got fragmented and now you can’t find as much content as before without using multiple services, which is an annoyance.
I think the amount of people who are familiar with search engine options besides Google is quite a bit larger than the population of Lemmy. (It fuckin better be, anyway)
As I understand it, this is only about using search results for summaries. If it’s just that and links to the source, I think it’s OK. What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation (=write me a story about topic XY).
that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I’m afraid. It’s just a matter of time with Google.
If that will actually be the case and passes legal challenges, basically all copyright can be abolished which would definitively have some upsides but also downsides. All those video game ROM decompilation projects would be suddenly in the clear, as those are new source code computer-generated from copyrighted binary code, so not really different from a AI generated image based on a copyrighted image used as training data. We could also ask Gemini write a full-length retelling of Harry Potter and just search, replace all trademarked names, and sell that shit. Evil companies could train an AI on GNU/Linux source codes and tell it to write an operating system. Clearly derived work from GPL code but without any copyright to speak of, all that generated code could be legally closed. I don’t like that.
No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.
That was the argument with the text snippets from news sources. Publishers successfully lobbied for laws to be passed in many countries that required search engine operators to pay fees. It backfired when Google removed the snippets from news sources that demanded fees from Google. Their visitors dropped by a massive amount, 90% or so, because those results were less attractive to Google users to click on than the nicer results with a snippet and a thumbnail. So “No one will click on the source” has already been disproven 10 or so years ago when the snippet issue was current. All those publishers have entered a free of charge licensing agreement with Google and the laws are still in place. So Google is fine, upstart search engines are not because those cannot pressure the publishers into free deals.
This has already happened and continues to happen.
Look at you, changing my mind with your logicking ways. I think information should be free anyway, but I thought media companies were being at least remotely genuine about the impact here. Forgot that lobbyists be lobbying and that Google wouldn't have let them win if it didn't benefit them.
The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It’s minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn’t require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.
With Gemini?
Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?
It’s not the same but it’s similar enough when, as the article states, it is solely about short summaries. The article may be wrong, Google may be outright lying, maybe, maybe, maybe.
Google, as by far the web’s largest ad provider, has a business incentive to direct users towards the web sites, so the website operators have to pay Google money. Maybe I’m missing something but I just don’t see the business sense in Google not doing that and so far I don’t see anything approximating convincing arguments.
Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?
Licensed and public domain content, of which there is plenty, maybe even content specifically created by Google to train the data. “the Gemini model understands language” in itself hardly is proof of any wrongdoing. I don’t claim to have perfect knowledge or memory, so it’s certainly possible that I missed more specific evidence but “the Gemini model understands language” by itself definitively is not.
pivot-to-ai.com
Hot