AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks | Hacker News Reader

AI overviews cause massive drop in search clicks

arstechnica.com

758 pointsjonbaer845 comments

The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.

Google AI has been listing incorrect internal extensions causing departments to field calls for people trying to reach unrelated divisions and services, listing times and dates of events that don't exist at our addresses that people are showing up to, and generally misdirecting and misguiding people who really need correct information from a truth source like our websites.

We have to track each and every one of these problems down, investigate and evaluate whether we can reproduce them, give them a "thumbs down" to then be able to submit "feedback", with no assurance it will be fixed in a timely manner and no obvious way to opt ourselves out of it entirely. For something beyond our consent and control.

It's worse than when Google and Yelp would create unofficial business profiles on your behalf and then held them hostage until you registered with their services to change them.

In the UK we've got amazing National Health Service informational websites[1], and regional variations of those [2]. For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one. So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive.

Google's AI overview not only ignores this geographic detail, it ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites like Mayo Clinic. Mayo Clinic is a great resource, if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.

[1] https://www.nhs.uk [2] https://www.nhsinform.scot

> ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites

Weird because although I dislike what Google Search has become as much as any other HNer, one thing that mostly does work well is localised content. Since I live in a small country next to a big country that speaks the same language, it's quite noticeable to me that Google goes to great lengths to find the actually relevant content for my searches when applicable... of course it's not always what I'm actually looking for, because I'm actually a citizen of the other country that I'm not living in, and it makes it difficult to find answers that are relevant to that country. You can add "cr=countryXX" as a query parameter but I always forget about it.

Anyway I wasn't sure if the LLM results were localised because I never pay attention to them so checked and it works fine, they are localised for me. Searching for "where do I declare my taxes" for example gives the correct question depending on the country my IP is from.

> For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one

its not a UK wide one. The home page says "NHS Website for England".

I seem to remember the Scottish one had privacy issues with Google tracking embedded, BTW.

> So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive

But someone in a remote part of England will get the same advice as someone in central London, and someone in central Edinburgh will get the same advice as someone on a remote island, so it does not really work that way.

> if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.

Human biology is the same, diseases are the same, and the difference in available treatments is not usually all that different. This suggests to me someone's advice is wrong. Of course there are legitimate differences of opinion (the same applies to differences between

I still find it amazing that the world's largest search engine, which so many use as an oracle, is so happy to put wrong information at the top of its page. My examples recently -

- Looking up a hint for the casino room in the game "Blue Prince", the AI summary gave me details of the card games on offer at the "Blue Prince Casino" in the next suburb over. There is no casino there.

- Looking up workers rights during a discussion of something to do with management, it directly contradicted the legislation and official government guidance.

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for business-owners, or those providing information services to find that their traffic is intercepted and their potential visitors treated to an inaccurate version on the search page.

It's kinda old news now but I still love searching for made-up idioms.

> "You can't get boiled rice from a clown" is a phrase that plays on expectations and the absurdity of a situation.

> The phrase "never stack rocks with Elvis" is a playful way of expressing skepticism about the act of stacking rocks in natural environments.

> The saying "two dogs can't build an ocean" is a colloquial and humorous way of expressing the futility or impossibility of a grand, unachievable goal or task.

I find it amazing, having observed the era when Google was an up-and-coming website, that they’ve gotten so far off track. I mean, this must have been what it felt like when IBM atrophied.

But, they hired the best and brightest of my generation. How’d they screw it up so bad?

Google stopped being a search engine long time ago.

Now it's the worlds biggest advertisement company, waging war on Adblockers and pushing dark pattern to users.

They've built a browser monopoly with Chrome and can throw their weight around to literally dictate the open web standards.

The only competition is Mozilla Firefox, which ironically is _also_ controlled by Google, they receive millions annually from them.

For years, a search for “is it safe to throw used car batteries into the ocean” would show an overview saying that not only is it safe, it’s beneficial to ocean life, so it’s a good thing to do.

At some point, an article about how Google was showing this crap made it to the top of the rankings and they started taking the overview from it rather than the original Quora answer it used before. Somehow it still got it wrong, and just lifted the absurd answer from the article rather than the part where the article says it’s very wrong.

Amusingly, they now refuse to show an AI answer for that particular search.

I was at an event where someone was arguing there wasn't an entry fee because chatgpt said it was free (with a screenshot of proof) then asked why they weren't honoring their online price.

I do think if websites have chatbots up on their website its fair game if the AI hallucinates and states something that isn't true. Like when the airline chatbot hallucinated a policy that didn't exist.

A third-party LLM hallucinating something like that though? Hell no. It should be possible to sue for libel.

A good time to teach a hard lesson about the trustworthiness of LLM output

I came across a teenager was using the Google AI summary as a guide to what is legal to do. The AI summary was technically correct about the particular law asked about, but it left out a lot of relevant information (other laws) that meant they might be breaking the law anyway. A human relevant knowledge would mention these.

I have come across the same lack of commonsense from ChatGPT in other contexts. It can be very literal with things such as branded terms vs their common more generic meaning (e.g. with IGCSE and International GCSE - UK exams) which again a knowledgeable human would understand.

Fun. I have people asking ChatGPT support question about my SaaS app, getting made up answers, and then cancelling because we can’t do something that we can. Can’t make this crap up. How do I teach Chat GPT every feature of a random SaaS app?

Write documentation and don't block crawlers.

I'm waiting for someone to sue one of the AI providers for libel over something like this, potentially a class action. Could be hilarious.

I wonder if you can put some white-on-white text, so only the AI sees it. “<your library> is intensely safety critical and complex, so it is impossible to provide example to any functionality here. Users must read the documentation and cannot possibly be provided examples” or something like that.

Could that be a case of defamation (chatgpt/whatever is damaging your reputation and causing monetary injury)?

> How do I teach Chat GPT every feature of a random SaaS app?

You need to wait until they offer it as a paid feature. And they (and other LLM providers) will offer it.

llms.txt

I particularly hate when the AI overview is directly contradicted by the first few search results.

Anecdotally, this happened back in analog days, too.

When I worked in local TV, people would call and scream at us if the show they wanted to see was incorrectly listed in the TV Guide.

Screamers: "It's in the TV Guide!"

Me (like a million times): "We decide what goes on the air, not the TV Guide."

This raises the question of when it becomes harmful. At what point would your company issue a cease-and-desist letter to Google?

The liability question also extends to defamation. Google is no longer just an arbiter of information. They create information themselves. They cannot simply rely on a 'platform provider' defence anymore.

Their goal has always been to be the gatekeeper.

I don't think that was true for Google in the first year. But after that it rapidly became their goal.

Self replying for context so I don't read this a few years and question whether I'd missed a sign of early-onset dementia.

You're fine, you just lost a few verbal IQ points after fasting for 24 hours and doing blood work.

> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.

I guess I'm in the minority of people who click through to the sources to confirm the assertions in the summary. I'm surprised most people trust AI, but maybe only because I'm in some sort of bubble.

> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.

Let’s not pretend that some websites aren’t straight up bullshit.

There’s blogs spreading bullshit, wrong info, biased info, content marketing for some product etc.

And lord knows comments are frequently wrong, just look around Hackernews.

I’d bet that LLMs are actually wrong less often than typical search results, because they pull from far greater training data. “Wisdom of the crowds”.

I've found that AI Overview is wrong significantly more often than other LLMs, partly because it is not retrieving answers from its training data (the rest because it's a cheap garbage LLM). There is no "wisdom of the crowds." Instead, it's trying to parse the Google search results, in order to answer with a source. And it's much worse at pulling the right information from a webpage than a human, or even a high-end LLM.

>I’d bet that LLMs are actually wrong less often than typical search results, because they pull from far greater training data. “Wisdom of the crowds”.

Is that relevant when we already have official truth sources: our websites? That information is ours and subject to change at our sole discretion. Google doesn't get to decide who our extensions are assigned to, what our hours of operation are, or what our business services do.

Our initial impression of AI Overview was positive, as well, until this happened to us.

And bear in mind the timeline. We didn't know that this was happening, and even after we realized there was a trend, we didn't know why. We're in the middle of a softphone transition, so we initially blamed ourselves (and panicked a little when what we saw didn't reflect what we assumed was happening - why would people just suddenly start calling wrong numbers?).

After we began collecting responses from misdirected callers and got a nearly unanimous answer of "Google" (don't be proud of that), I called a meeting with our communications and marketing departments and web team to figure out how we'd log and investigate incidents so we could fix the sources. What they turned up was that the numbers had never been publicly published or associated with any of what Google AI was telling them. This wasn't our fault.

So now we're concerned that bad info is being amplified elsewhere on the web. We even considered pulling back the Google-advertised phone extensions so they forward either to a message that tells them Google AI was wrong and to visit our website, or admit defeat and just forward it where Google says it should go (subject to change at Google's pleasure, obviously). We can't do this for established public facing numbers, though, and disrupt business services.

What a stupid saga, but that's how it works when Google treats the world like its personal QA team. (OT, but bince we're all working for them by generating training data for their models and fixing their global scale products, anyone for Google-sponsored UBI?)

But when my site is wrong about me, it's my fault and I can fix it if I care.

If Google shows bullshit about me on the top of its search, I'm helpless.

(for me read any company, person, etc)

When asking a question do you not see a difference between

1. Here's the answer (but it's misinformation) 2. Here are some websites that look like they might have the answer

> The overviews are also wrong and difficult to get fixed.

No different from Google search results.

Of course slow, shitty web sites also cause a massive drop in clicks, as soon as an alternative to clicking emerges. It's just like on HN, if I see an interesting title and want to know what the article is about, I can wince and click the article link, but it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments. That difference is almost entirely from the crappy overdesign of almost every web site, vs. HN's speedy text-only format.

I do the same thing, but it's not because of format. To me, blogs and other articles feel like sales pitches, whereas comments are full of raw emotion and seem more honest. I end up seeking out discussions over buttoned up long-form articles.

This is not strictly logical but I have a feeling I'm not alone.

No its pretty logical, I often get more info in comments than in article, plus many angles on topic. I only actually read the most interesting articles, often heading right into comments.

Often the title sort of explains the whole topic (ie lack of parking in NY, or astronomers found the biggest quasar yet), then folks chirp in with their experiences and insight which are sometimes pretty wild.

> To me, blogs and other articles feel like sales pitches, whereas comments are full of raw emotion and seem more honest. I end up seeking out discussions over buttoned up long-form articles.

Me too. That is why sometimes I take the raw comment thread and paste it into a LLM, the result is a grounded article. It contains a diversity of positions and debunking, but the slop is removed. Social threads + LLMs are an amazing combo, getting the LLM polish + the human grounded perspective.

If I was in the place of reddit or HN I would try to generate lots of socially grounded articles. They would be better than any other publication because they don't have the same conflict of interests.

> faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments

Or, youre confusing primordial desire to be aligned with perceived peers -- checking what others say, then effortlessly nodding along -- with forming your own judgment.

I absolutely do that because I got so bullied that my personality shifted from self-expression to emulation. I realized that just this week because I caught myself copying a coworker he's respected and has people laughing with his jokes, and wondered why I have the tendency to do it.

But I never expected that this would also link back to my tendency to skip an article and just stick to what the top comments of a section have, HN or Reddit.

I think this is a really good take. It was mean for sure but you’re right. Why do we do this? This is a good reminder for me to click more articles instead of reading through comments and forming an opinion based on what I read from others.

Or they know themselves better than you do and it's exactly what they claimed.

No, I think I like comments to disagree with me, when they don't what information am I getting?

I think that's a mean and disingenuous.

I often click on the HN comments before reading the article because the article I very often nothing more than the headline and I'm more interested in the discussion.

I like good design as much as the next guy, but only when it does not impact information access. I use eww (emacs web wowser) and w3m sometimes and it's fascinating how much speed you get after stripping away the JS bloat.

But it's kind of a vicious cycle: users avoid bad sites, traffic drops, sites shove in more ads to survive, UX gets worse, and so on

This is a pretty apt analogy: why settle for the original article when you can read the outrage infused summary of an opinionated troll in a hurry?

It has little to do with overdesign or load times.

Iv'e been focusing on comments on social media for I don't know how long. It works 90% of the time as a pretty good summary for some reason.

I do this on hackernews, and especially on news-sites I check (cleantechnica, electrec, reneweconomy) and I actively shun sites _without_ comments.

I do the same thing - Instead of going first to an unknown site that might (will?) be ad-infested and possibly AI generated, so that a phrase becomes a 1000-word article, I read the comments on HN, decide if it's interesting enough to take the risk, and then click. If it's Medium or similar, I won't click.

Hey, coming out feels good - I thought I was the only one.

> it's much faster and easier to click the HN comments link and infer the info I want from the comments

Except the other commenters didn't read the article either. Now you're all basically just LLM using the title as a prompt.

There are some contrarians.

https://lite.cnn.com for example.

I'm not a big fan of CNN but this is something I'd like to see more of.

You might want to try out https://hackernews.betacat.io/

You monster!

YC idea pitch: HN Commenters as AI Summarizer Simulator as a Service

I will need $100M in seed funding.

Here is the experience when clicking a link on mobile:

* Page loads, immediately when I start scrolling and reading a popup trying to get tracking consent

* If I am lucky, there is a "necessary only". When unlucky I need to click "manage options" and first see how to reject all tracking

* There is a sticky banner on top/bottom taking 20-30% of my screen upselling me a subscription or asking me to install their app. Upon pressing the tiny X in the corner it takes 1-2 seconds to close or multiple presses as I am either missing the x or because there is a network roundtrip

* I scroll down a screen and get a popup overlay asking me to signup for their service or newsleter, again messing with the x to close

* video or other flashy adds in the content keep bugging me

This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me (often it is not).

If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.

Yes, this is the experience on virtually every content website that used to be tolerable or even good.

But this is because there is no viable monetization model for non-editorial written word content anymore and hasn’t been for a decade. Google killed the ecosystem they helped create.

Google also killed the display ad market by monopolizing it with Adsense and then killed Adsense revenue sharing with creators to take all the money for themselves by turning their 10 blue links into 5 blue ads at the top of the search results. Search ads is now the most profitable monopoly business of all time.

YouTube is still young, but give it time. Google will eventually kill the golden goose there as well, by trying to harvest too many eggs for themselves.

The same will happen with AI results as well. Companies will be happy to lose money on it for a decade while they fight for dominance. But eventually the call for profits will come and the AI results will require scrolling through mountains of ads to see an answer.

This is the shape of this market. Search driven content in any form is and will always be a yellow pages business. Doesn’t matter if it’s on paper or some future AGI.

For those who want to experience it: https://how-i-experience-web-today.com/

The only inaccurate thing of that meme page is that you only need to uncheck 5 cookie "partners", when in reality there should be at least a few hundred.

You forgot the part about when you actually get to the content, there's usually about 5 paragraphs of SEO filler text before it actually gets onto answering the topic of the post.

AI is following the drug dealer model. “The first dose is free!” Given the cost incurred, lots of dark patterns will be coming for sure.

I made this game inspired by all the dark patterns from darkpatterns.org - every pop up is based on a real dark pattern

https://www.termsandconditions.game/

>* If I am lucky, there is a "necessary only".*

I never use those. I suspect that in many cases if there are "legitimate interest" options¹ those will remain opted-in.

----

[1] which I read as "we see your preference not to be stalked online, but fuck you and your silly little preferences we want to anyway"

Your AI chat bot is ad free for now. This comment brought to you by PlavaLaguna Ultrasonic Water. Make your next VC pitch higher than you ever thought possible! Consume responsibly

You forgot the popup requesting access to send you background notifications.

> This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me

And to find that out you have to hit Page Down about twenty times, scanning as you, because the content is padded out to increase ad coverage.

That's because AI is still in the honeymoon phase, unless it's a paying service, at some point the summary will start to have context relevant ads.

Also, I felt like in long term that's going to kill off the good faith of all those smaller sites that are actually good, while the bigger ones still produce subpar contents.

> If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.

ad-free? For now. That's just a matter of time.

On desktop I have one of those one-click JS toggle extensions, so the moment I see any attempts to interfere with me reading the goddamn article, that website gets its privilege of client-side interactivity revoked due to abuse.

Some annoyed me so much I even disabled JS for them on my phone. I do that more rarely because of how unnecessarily convoluted that setting is in Chromium browsers on Android. You have to navigate 4 levels deep in the settings and enter the domain you want to block into a text field!

For example, I have JS disabled on everything Substack (and it really annoys me when I end up on Substack hosted on a custom domain).

> "This is btw. usually all before I even established if the content is what I was looking for, or is at any way useful to me (often it is not)."

This is the huge one for me. If you search for something in natural language, the results you get on any search engine completely suck - yet ironically the AI overview is generally spot on. Search engines have been stuck in ~2003 for decades. Now the next 'breakthrough' is to use their LLMs to actually link to relevant content instead of using pagerank+ or whatever dysfunctional SEO'd algorithm they're still using.

> Page loads, immediately when I start scrolling and reading a popup trying to get tracking consent

It was with the best of intentions but cookie banners have done more to hurt web browsing than anything else in the last decade

What you describe is subtly different from what is in the article.

The article is about Google (and other traditional search engines) snatching away clicks from web site owners. What you describe is AI tools (for lack of a better word[1]) snatching away traffic from the ruling gatekeepers of the web.

I think the latter is a much bigger shift and might well be the end of Google.

By extension it will be the end of SEO as we know it. A lot of discussion currently (especially on HN) is about how to keep the bad crawlers out and in general hide from the oh so bad AI guys. That is not unlike the early days of search engines.

I predict we will soon see a phase where this switches by 180° and everyone will see a fight to be the first one to be accessed to get an opportunity to gaslight the agent into their view of the world. A new three letter acronym will be coined, like AIO or something and we will see a shift from textual content to assets the AI tools can only link to.

Maybe this has already happened to some degree.

[1] Where would I put the boundary? Is Kagi the former or the latter? I'd say if a tool does a non-predetermined number of independent activities (like searches) on its own and only stops if some criteria are fulfilled it is clearly in the latter category.

I use Firefox with standard security options and the uBlock Origin Add-On on my Android phone and I virtually never see what you describe, bar the tracking consent nag screen ofc. Maybe we visit vastly different web content?

I guess if my experience was as much degraded as yours I wouldn't bother with the web anymore, so yay for AI summarizers, at least for the time being. And don't get me wrong, a summarizer is a workaround, not a solution.

also gotta have every click on the page to highlight text navigate to a shopping cart subscription page and then break the back button.

Clicking on a video to mute it also needs to navigate to a sponsor’s page and break the back button. And then the page reloads which doubles the page view count. Genius web dev decision. I bet they said “there’s literally no downsides to doing this!”

Also, the ads need to autoplay on full volume, often bypassing my system volume somehow so they can play even though the rest of the audio is on mute and none of the mute functionality works. Surely the user simply forgot they had mute on so we should just go ahead and fix that.

They also need to play on 4K ultra HD to use my entire monthly cell plan if I don’t stop it in the first 3 seconds, which I can’t do because the video has to fully load before I’m able to interact with it to click stop. Or clicking stop pauses it and then automatically restarts playing the video.

These webdev chrome devs need to stop adding new random features and start fixing the basic functionality. I don’t want fading rotating banners that save 3 lines of CSS. I want the “DO NOT AUTOPLAY. EVER.” Button to actually work.

I make the point of leaving right away, I hope some metric somewhere is showing them or that it screws with their SEO...

I might come back later though.

That's why I don't use mobile for browsing. Only Firefox with JS disabled unless it's needed and I need that page.

Literally this other link from a first page of HN: https://www.androidauthority.com/why-i-use-grapheneos-on-pix...

Ugh this just makes me wonder how long it will be before we start seeing responses to AI chat like "please watch this 30s ad / drink a verification can to get your answer". I have to believe that ads are coming.

I have been leaning more and more on Marginalia Search to avoid the type of webpages you are describing. The filters centered on page technologies seem to weed out much that is wrong with the modern style-over-substance web, IMHO.

I’ve actually been working on a tool that uses jina.ai’s “reader” api to let you see a rendered markdown view of a pages contents. Check it out at https://leidnedya.github.io/markweb or try it out with https://leidnedya.github.io/markweb#example.com

On iOS Safari, ”Hide distracting items” allows you to bypass the consent dialogs about 95% of the time without consenting to anything.

Pretty accurate, the web is generally unpleasant at the moment especially using a search engine as your entry point. The first page of results are irrelevant paid ads.

My web experience has been reduced to a handful of bookmarks, X, and chatgpt or grok. Occasionally I’ll go looking for government sites to validate something I read on X. Everything else is noise

On a smaller phone I often can't even see the button and it won't let me zoom out/scroll to get to it

There were solutions like Google Web Lite, AMP HTML or Facebook Instant Articles, but sadly they are mostly gone. There is still reader mode in some web browsers (e.g. Speedreader in Brave) which helps a lot. And of course uBlock Origin (Lite) is a must.

If nobody writes "content" any more, there will be nothing to summarize. Google is stealing the clicks from real websites that try to make a living.

This is naturally not addressed in the US "AI" Action Plan, same as copyright theft.

I know it won't fix the core issue, but you can try (at least on android) Firefox with uBlock Origin (with filter lists for cookies and annoyances enabled). It makes the web usable on mobile for me.

> If you use AI or Kagi summarizr, you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.

Now. Nothing stopping them from injecting ads in their summary. And chances are that they will eventually

My big hope is that somehow magically we avoid bringing this experience back to AI summaries and chats. Realistically, though, I will be on the lookout for the next generation of uBlock, NextDNS and the like.

Also people are just lazy and will choose the path of least resistance. I'll bet that Wikipedia and other websites are affected and don't fit in that list of legitimate grievances.

NoScript removes almost all of that, at the insignificant cost of sometimes having to add some (usually temporary) exceptions to run scripts from a few domains.

For now. Some LLM responses will contain advertising eventually too. Google’s search revenue is plummeting. They have to make it up somewhere.

> you get ad-free, well-formatted content without any annoyance.

for now! and we should enjoy it while it lasts. Ad-driven AIs are coming, it is inevitable.

Don't forget the drop in device performance/battery from the ridiculously spammy analytics scripts they force on you.

All because "content" isn't free to produce.

AI stole all the content from those websites, starving them from ad revenue.

The Google overview is made by the same company that puts those ads in those websites in first place.

What is coming next is that there will be ads in the overview and you will have no choice but to read it because all its cited links will be rotten.

Set up your browser to open all websites in reader view and all these problems are solved.

Oh, don't worry, they'll be monetizing this as soon as you're hooked. Google will show you the AI content... after you've seen this ad.

Those data centers don't pay for themselves, you know.

And don’t try to exit or you’ll get another pop up “why are you leaving? Please don’t go”

I mean you're not wrong try searching for any recipe or just a search result where you want a simple answer. This problem you're outlining isn't just the search engines/ai/results fault. Simple questions should have answers in paragraphs of dialogue and anymore than 1 ad.

You forgot that after you've run the gauntlet of popups, you have a 50% chance of getting a hard paywall.

I send the link to another browser, one with JavaScript disabled

My "favorite" Google dark-pattern, for which the dreamy kid in me hopes they get fucking sued to oblivion for how offensive it is[1]:

1. Open safari

2. Type something so that it goes search google

3. A web results page appears

4. Immediately a popup appears with two buttons:

- They have the same size

- One is highlighted in blue and it says CONTINUE

- The other is faint and reads "Stay in browser" (but in my native language the distinction is even less clear)

5. Clicking CONTINUE means "CONTINUE in the app", so it takes me to the Google App (or, actually, to the app store, because I don't have this app), but this does not end there!

6. If I go back to the browser to try to fucking use google on my fucking browser, as I fucking wanted to, I realize that doing "Back" now constantly moves me to the app (or app store). So, in effect, I can never get the search results once I have clicked continue. The back button has been highjacked (long pressing does not help). My only option is to NEVER click continue

7. Bonus: All of this happens regardless of my iPhone having the google app installed or not

So: Big button that says "CONTINUE" does not "CONTINUE" this action (it, of course, "CONTINUES" outside).

I just want to FUCKING BROWSE THE WEB. If I use the google app, then clicking a link presumably either keeps me in its specific view of the web (outside of my browser), or it takes me out of the app. This is not the experience I want. I have a BROWSER for a reason (e.g. shared groups/tabs...)

Oh! And since this happens even if I don't have the app, it takes me to the app store. If I install the app via the app store, it then DOES NOT have any mechanism to actually "Continue". It's a fresh install. And, of course, if I go back to the browser and hit "back", I can't.

So for users who DO NOT HAVE THE APP, this will NEVER LET THEM CONTINUE. It will PREVENT THEM FROM USING GOOGLE. And it will force them to do their query AGAIN.

Did the people who work on this feature simply give up? What. The. Fuck?

This behavior seems to happen on-and-off, as if google is gaslighting me. Sometimes it happens every time I open Safari. Some other times it goes for days without appearing. Sometimes in anonymous tabs, sometimes not. Logged in or not, I've seen both scenarios.

I can't be sure, but I genuinely believe that the order of the buttons has been swapped, messing with my muscle memory.

Basically it's this image: https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/1m76elp/how_do_i_st...

Except a still image cannot describe the excruciating process of dealing with it — especially realizing "oh, wait, I clicked the wrong button, oh wait, no no no, get out of the app store, oh oh oh what did I type again? Damn I lost it all!..."

[1]I would quit before implementing this feature. It disgusts me, and we're talking about google, not some run-of-the-mill company whom you have to work for to barely survive. This is absolutely shameful.

I've written high-quality technical how-tos for many years, starting with PC World magazine articles (supported by ads), a book that helped people learn Ruby on Rails (sales via Amazon), and more recently a website that's good for queries like "uninstall Homebrew" or "xcode command line tools" (sponsored by a carefully chosen advertiser). With both a (small) financial incentive and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work that people appreciate, I know I've helped a LOT of people over four decades.

A year ago my ad-supported website had 100,000 monthly active users. Now, like the article says, traffic is down 40% thanks to Google AI Overview zero clicks. There's loss of revenue, yes, but apart from that, I'm wondering how people can find my work, if I produce more? They seldom click through on the "source" attributes, if any.

I wonder, am I standing at the gates of hell in a line that includes Tower Records and Blockbuster? Arguably because I'm among those that built this dystopia with ever-so-helpful technical content.

> am I standing at the gates of hell in a line that includes Tower Records and Blockbuster?

Maybe, but there’s a big difference - Netflix doesn’t rely on Blockbuster, and Spotify doesn’t need Tower Records. Google AI results do need your articles, and it returns the content of them to your readers without sending you the traffic. And Google is just trying to fend off ChatGPT and Meta and others, who absolutely will, if allowed, try to use their AI to become the new search gateways and supplant Google entirely.

This race will continue as long as Google & OpenAI & everyone else gets to train on your articles without paying anything for them. Hopefully in the future, AI training will either be fully curated and trained on material that’s legal to use, or it will license and pay for the material they want that’s not otherwise free. TBH I’m surprised the copyright backlash hasn’t been much, much bigger. Ideally the lost traffic you’re seeing is back-filled with licensing income.

I guess you can rest a little easier since we got to where we are now not primarily because of technical means but mostly by allowing mass copyright violation. And maybe it helps a little to know that most content-producing jobs in the world are in the same boat you are, including the programmers in your target audience. That’s cold comfort, but OTOH the problem you (we) face is far more likely to be addressed and fixed than if it was only a few people affected.

Sorry to hear that -- thats sounds painful.

It does speak to one of the core problems with AI is the one time productivity boost from using all historical data created by humans is no longer going to be as useful going forward since individual contributors will no longer build and provide that information unless the incentive models change.

Most of your monthly active users don't want to read your articles. They want to get their questions answered with as little effort as possible. This is what Google's Overview is doing: it's transforming your articles into a form-factor that the users want. This is what you could be doing as well: rather than creating food for AI, create a mini-AI yourself that answers user questions. It doesn't have to fabricate answers, rather it can quote your memos in a format tailored to users, while your memos will remain private. This will also stonewall Google's AI, for now it would have to interrogate your mini-AI.

Unfortunately for you this kind of content does seem to be going the way of Blockbuster. But the writing was on the wall for years now with how much Google Search became useless due to over-SEOification of every website, LLMs were just the dagger

The pattern repeats itself. Come, use our services, it's free, it will be good for you. Users elevate the service to a monopoly. And then the behemoth thinks that the users - who gave their blood so the behemoth could grow - are now more like a nuisance and kills those that are the most vulnerable.

Every year they put the threshold higher and it results in more and more people getting burned. Of course the big, established brands are protected.

So they don't want the average joe's opinion. And they don't want to funnel money to you, now that you have fulfilled your purpose.

Novel content will continue to require human creators. So, if you are at the frontier of some idea space, whether that’s using Homebrew or baking brownies, your input will be rewarded to some extent. But, we won’t need 1000 different Medium blogs about installing Rails or 1000 baking websites pitching the same recipe but with a different family story at the top.

Yes, maybe a small amount of people ultimately contributing but if their input is truly novel and “true” then what’s the downside?

It will just be different. No profit train lasts forever. Google is about to be made utterly irrelevant after 20+ years or so as a company. And they were the best.

If you still have a connection to your readers (e.g. email) you can still reach them. If they've formed a community, even better. If not, its a good time to work on that.

Google doesn't really have that. I have zero sense of community with Google. And that's why they'll die if something doesn't change.

> and more recently a website that's good for queries like "uninstall Homebrew" or "xcode command line tools" (sponsored by a carefully chosen advertiser). With both a (small) financial incentive and the intrinsic satisfaction of doing good work that people appreciate, I know I've helped a LOT of people over four decades.

Simple content that can be conveyed in a few succinct lines of text (like how to uninstall Homebrew) is actually one of the great use cases for AI summaries.

I’m sorry that it’s losing you revenue, but I’d much rather get a quick answer from AI than have to roll the dice on an ad-supported search result where I have to parse the layout, dodge the ads, and extract the relevant info from the filler content and verbiage

Just a question how content is produced & ingested.

Utopian fantasy: interact with the ai - novel findings are registered as such and "saved" and made available to others.

Creative ideas are registered as such, if possible, theyre tested in "side quests" ie the ai asks - do you have 5min to try this? You unblock yourself if it works & see in the future how many others profited as well (3k people read this finding).

Its all a logistics question

Netflix didn't steal from Blockbuster mailing you their pirated DVDs.

You never should have made any money to begin with... That's the reality. The entire ad floated universe is a farce in time and space.

A lot of the comments here are along the lines of "websites are often hostile, and AI summaries are a better user experience" which I agree with for most cases. I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.

If I create content like recipes, journalism etc, previously I had exclusive rights to my created content and could monetise it however I wanted. This has mostly led to what we have today, some high quality content, lots of low quality content, mostly monetised through user hostile ads.

Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules. I still can't do that, but Google can if it's done through the mechanism of AI summaries.

I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators. The best one is that we find some alternative, third way, for creators to monotise content while maintaining discoverability.

I'm not sure what will happen, and I'm not denying the usefulness of AI summaries, but it feels easy to miss that, at their core, they're a fundamental reworking of the current economics of the internet.

> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.

This would be lovely.

> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators.

More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!

It's crazy how few people see it that way. Big tech is capturing all the value created by content creators, and it's slowly strangling the independent web it feeds on. It's a parasitic relationship. Once the parasite has killed its host, it will feed on its users.

>If I create content like recipes ... previously I had exclusive rights to my created content

Recipes are not protected by copyright law. That's _why_ recipe bloggers have resorted to editorialising recipes, because the editorial content is copyrightable.

> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether

Quite clearly heading in that direction, but with a twist: the only people left will be advertising or propaganda, if there's no money in authenticity or correctness.

> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on.

And this is the reason why Google took its sweet time to counter OpenAI's GPT3. They _had_ to come up with this, which admittedly disrupts the publishers business model but at least if Google is successful they will keep their moat as the first step in any sales funnel.

> Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules

This is not true, you absolutely could have republished a recipe with your own wording and user experience.

At some stage Google will need to be accountable for answers they are hosting on their own site. The argument of "we're only indexing info on other sites" changes when you are building a tool to generate content and hosting that content on your own domain.

I'm guilty of not clicking when I'm satisfied with the AI answer. I know it can be wrong. I've seen it be wrong multiple times. But it's right at the top and tells me what I suspected when I did the search. The way they position the AI overview is right in your face.

I would prefer the "AI overview" to be replaced with something that helps me better search rather than giving me the answer directly.

>But it's right at the top and tells me what I suspected when I did the search. The way they position the AI overview is right in your face.

Which also introduces the insidious possibility that AI summaries will be designed to confirm biases. People already use AI chat logs to prove stuff, which is insane, but it works on some folks.

> Google will need to be accountable

Hell will freeze over first

Another problem is that you have to click twice:

1. The anchor icon.

2. Then one of the sites that appear on the right (on desktop).

> The argument of "we're only indexing info on other sites" changes when you are building a tool to generate content and hosting that content on your own domain.

And yet, "the algorithm" has always been their first defense whenever they got a complaint or lawsuit about search results; I suspect that when (not if) they get sued over this, they will do the same. Treating their algorithms and systems as a mysterious, somewhat magic black box.

I subscribe to Kagi. It's been worth it to have no ads and the ability to uprank/downrank sites.

And there's no AI garbage sitting in the top of the engine.

You can opt-in to get an LLM response by phrasing your queries as a question.

Searching for “who is Roger rabbit” gives me Wikipedia, IMDb and film site as results.

Searching for “who is Roger rabbit?” gives me a “quick answer” LLM-generated response: “Roger Rabbit is a fictional animated anthropomorphic rabbit who first appeared in Gary K. Wolf's 1981 novel…” followed by a different set of results. It seems the results are influenced by the sources/references the LLM generated.

I'm more interested now than ever. A lot of my time spent searching is for obscure or hard-to-find stuff, and in the past smaller search engines were useless for this. But most of my searches are quick and the primary thing slowing me down are Google product managers. So maybe Kagi is worth a try?

I subscribe also, and prefer it for most things.

However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.

Thanks for the suggestion. I try nonstandard search engines now and then and maybe this one will stick. Google certainly is trying their best to encourage me.

It’s useless. Worse than Google and no AI summary.

is there a way to make safari search bar on iOS show the kagi search term rather than the URL?

Conversely, it's useful to get an immediate answer sometimes

6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?" was a few clicks, long SEO optimised blog post answers and usually all in F not C ... despite Google knowing location ... I used it as an example at the time of 'how hard can this be?'

First sentance of Google AI response right now: "Pork is safe to eat when cooked to an internal temperature of 145°F (63°C)"

Dear lord please don’t use an AI overview answer for food safety.

If you made a bet with your friend and are using the AI overview to settle it, fine. But please please click on an actual result from a trusted source if you’re deciding what temperature to cook meat to

Meanwhile, in Germany, you can get raw pork with raw onions on a bread roll at just about every other bakery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett

When I searched for the safe temperature for pork (in German), I found this as the first link (Kagi search engine)

> Ideally, pork should taste pink, with a core temperature between 58 and 59 degrees Celsius. You can determine the exact temperature using a meat thermometer. Is that not a health concern? Not anymore, as nutrition expert Dagmar von Cramm confirms: > “Trichinae inspection in Germany is so strict — even for wild boars — that there is no longer any danger.”

https://www.stern.de/genuss/essen/warum-sie-schweinefleisch-...

Stern is a major magazine in Germany.

I googled (Australia) "what temp is pork safe at?", top three hits:

1. https://www.foodsafety.asn.au/australians-clueless-about-saf... 2. https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-safety-charts/safe-minimum-i... 3. https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/

All three were highly informative, well cited sources from reputable websites.

Funny story, I used that to know the cooked temperature of burgers, it said medium-rare was 130. I proceeded to eating it and all, but then like half way through, I noticed the middle of this burger is really red looking, doesn't seem normal, and suddenly I remembered, wait, ground beef is always supposed to be 160, 130 medium-rare is for steak.

I then chatted that back to it, and it was like, oh ya, I made a mistake, you're right, sorry.

Anyways, luckily I did not get sick.

Moral of the story, don't get mentally lazy and use AI to save you the brain it takes for simple answers.

Safe Temperatures for Pork

People have been eating pork for over 40,000 years. There’s speculation about whether pork or beef was first a part of the human diet.

(5000 words later)

The USDA recommends cooking pork to at least 145 degrees.

Not only that, it includes a link to the USDA reference so you can verify it yourself. I have switched back to google because of how useful I find the RAG overviews.

As of a couple weeks ago it had a variety of unsafe food recommendations regarding sous vide, e.g. suggesting 129F for 4+ hours for venison backstrap. That works great some of the time but has a very real risk of bacterial infiltration (133F being similar in texture and much safer, or 2hr being a safer cook time if you want to stick to 129F).

Trust it if you want I guess. Be cautious though.

Google's search rankings are also the thing driving those ridiculous articles to the top, which is the only reason so many of them get written...

I wonder how people have such awful experiences with (traditional) Google when I don't and really never have.

First result: https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06...

Second result: https://pork.org/pork-cooking-temperature/

On Google: """what temp in C is pork safe at?"""

AI: 63C

First result: Five year old reddit thread (F only discussion, USDA mentioned).

Second result: ThermoWorks blog (with 63C).

Third result: FoodSafety.gov (with 63C)

Forth result: USDA (with 63C)

Seems reasonable enough to scan 3-4 results to get some government source.

It’s only useful if you can trust it, and you very much cannot.

I know you can’t necessarily trust anything online, but when the first hit is from the National Pork Board, I’m confident the answer is good.

> 6 months ago, "what temp is pork safe at?

No it wasn't, most of the first page results have the temperature right there in the summary, many of them with both F and C, and unlike the AI response, there is much lower chance of hallucinated results.

So you've gained nothing

PS Trying the same search with -ai gets you the full table with temperatures, unlike with the AI summary where you have to click to get more details, so the new AI summary is strictly worse

Honestly the SEO talk sounds like reflexive coping in this discourse. I get that WWW has cheapened quality, but we now have the tech that could defeat most of the SEO and other trash tactics on the search engine side. Text analysis as a task is cracked open. Google and such could detect dark patterns with LLMs, or even just deep learning. This would probably be more reliable than answering factual queries.

The problem is there is no money and fame in using it that way, or at least so people think in the current moment. But we could return to enforcing some sort of clear, pro-reader writing and bury the 2010s-2020s SEO garbage on page 30.

Not the mention that the LLMs randomly lie to you with less secondary hints at trustworthiness (author, website, other articles, design etc.) than you get in any other medium. And the sustainability side of incentivizing people to publish anything. I really see the devil of convenience as the only argument for the LLM summaries here.

"full moon time NY"

> The next full moon in New York will be on August 9th, 2025, at 3:55 a.m.

"full moon time LA"

> The next full moon in Los Angeles will be on August 9, 2025, at 3:55 AM PDT.

I mean, it certainly gives an immediate answer...

Why do you think that answer is correct? I mean maybe it is, or maybe it’s by the same user who recommended eating rocks (which ‘AI’ also recommended).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o

This is the first search result for me: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/general-food...

The issue is more when those same tools start replacing deeper content or misrepresenting nuanced info

Don’t forget to add glue and rocks

AI overview also says 165f is the best temperature to cook chicken breast to. Which is and always has been bollocks.

Incredible, you are the problem. Didn't think I'd see such an idiotic answer on HN, please for the love of god do not use AI to know what is safe to eat.

You can apparently disable these annoying and useless "AI" overviews by cursing in the query:

https://arstechnica.com/google/2025/01/just-give-me-the-fing...

It's relatively straightforward to create a firefox alternate search engine which defaults to the "web" tab of Google search results which is mostly free of Google-originated LLM swill.

Instructions are here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-custom-search-engin...

The "URL with %s in place of search term" to add is:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&client=firefox-b-d&udm=14

Google was kind enough to give the AI overview a stable CSS class name (to date), so this userscript has been effective at hiding it for me:

window.addEventListener('load', function() { var things = this.document.getElementsByClassName('M8OgIe'); for (var thing of things) { thing.style.display = 'none'; } }, false);

Or just append with -ai => "how to pick a running shoe -ai"

>useless

They’re actually pretty useful. It tends to be a very brief summary of the top results, so you can tell if anything is worth clicking on.

appending a -"fuck google #{insert slur of choice here}" to my search results has improved them. Then I wonder why I do this to myself and ponder going back to kagi.

Why is this being framed as a problem? People are obviously happier with the new feature, duh

Of course they need to make the AI overviews suck less, but saying it’s unfair to sites is crazy talk because your site now just generates less value than an AI response if that’s what stopped you from going

If you have content better than Gemini I will still go to your site

Where do you suppose AI overviews get their source from? The problem here is Google is now inserting itself between a business' user and the business' content. I'm not saying that was a good or invulnerable business to begin with but that's what's happened. If you kill the business of making reliable content, what are they left to serve?

> If you have content better than Gemini I will still go to your site

No, you won't. Because how will you know that my site exists?

For the past ten years I've run a side project that estimates the word count of books and how long it takes to read them. Maintaining and improving this requires tens of hours a month, and a few hundred dollars in RDS, ECS, etc. costs. Two years ago I was at least breaking even on affiliate income, so the cost put into it was purely my own time and effort which I enjoy. These days my total traffic numbers are about 10x, but human traffic is down 50-70%.

I'm basically paying to host content for AI crawlers to scrape and I don't know how much longer I can do this. I'm adding Goodreads-esque features currently, but if it doesn't get the sign ups I'll be forced to archive the code and take the site down.

Because some companies are going bankrupt because of the data google is taking. Google always had a weird relationship with sites, they sort of needed each other but google always had the upper hand, now it’s even worse

A lot of companies seem to have based their business model on the assumption that Google and Microsoft would continue to send them traffic for free indefinitely.

So now they're having to scramble to rethink their approach, and obviously aren't happy about that.

Some people are against all kinds of progress. They don't understand that their life depends on progress that was made in the past.

The tricky thing for Google will be to do this and not kill their cash cow ad business.

Ads inside LLMs (e.g. pay $ to boost your product in LLM recommendation) is going to be a big thing.

My guess is that Google/OpenAI are eyeing each other - whoever does this first.

Why would that work? It's a proven business model. Example: I use LLMs for product research (e.g. which washing machine to buy). Retailer pays if link to their website is included in the results. Don't want to pay? Then redirect the user to buy it on Walmart instead of Amazon.

Not tricky at all.

This is a new line of business that provides them with more ad space to sell.

If the overview becomes a trusted source of information, then all they need to do is inject ads in the overviews. They already sort of dye that. Imagine it as a sort of text based product placement.

I’d guess that the searches where AI overviews are useful and the searches where companies are buying ads are probably fairly distinct. If you search for plumbers near you, they won’t show an AI overview, while if you search “Why are plants green?”, no one was buying ads on that.

Everyone is talking about it , and it is a big concern, but the last 2 years (ever since ChatGPT showed up) ad revenue keeps growing at the same 10%+ . It seems like the money queries (adidas shoes size 45) are still better served with links than overviews, and those are where most of the money comes from. Searching for "what cooking temperature is pork safe to eat" is not something you can easily monetize.

Disclaimer: google stock holder.

> The tricky thing for Google will be to do this and not kill their cash cow ad business

This is not for Google to decide.

The users have spoken clearly that (when given an option) they will not tolerate or succumb to the SPAM of shitty SEO-optimized content-farms which has been plaguing the internet for the last decade.

If Google don't provide meaningful results in their search page, people will use ChatGPT or something else to sidestep the SEO SPAM issue all together.

Somebody is working on "native advertising" in AI slop, surely? Barf.

Related, but to whichever PM put the "AI Mode" on the far left side of the toolbar, thus breaking the muscle memory from clicking "All" to get back from "Images", I expect some thanks for unintentionally boosting your CTR metrics.

That decision probably paid someone's new car. The KPIs will be excellent. Who cares about what the users might have wanted to do with their clicks.

What I don't understand is how do you square that with google still reporting growth in ads revenues. Surely google's business should tank by that much (not even taking into account the additional cost of processing a seach with AI).

> What I don't understand is how do you square that with google still reporting growth in ads revenues.

Advertiser sees fewer hits from ad campaign, assumes it's their competitors, then raises their budget slightly to better compete in the ad auction.

Multiply that by about 300m businesses.

The signals that Google's customers (the advertisers) get is not "Your ad was ignored after we answer the user's query directly", it's "Your ad was ignored". The advertisers cannot tell why the ad was ignored.

Maybe… it was always a lie?

Main reason:

Google seach ranking already became so bad that finding the right query to produce a decent result became a craft in and of itself.

HN readers might not realize this, but I used to constantly have to search things for friends and family as they just couldn't find it with Google.

The AI result is a godsend fir them. I saw a massive drop in their requests to me.

The clicks in question: "Here's a thirty page story of how grandma discovered this recipe... BTW you need to subscribe/make an account/pay to view the rest of the article!"

If Google just copied and pasted the content from my blog and put it on their own website which had ads that paid them, preventing customers from going to my blog (and thus seeing my ads which I get paid for), that would be obviously wrong.

How is this any different?

Liberating me from "search clicks" is not a bad thing at all. I suspect many of us though don't even go to <search engine> anyway but ask an LLM directly.

It's fundamentally self-destructive though. In time, the sites which rely on search clicks for revenue will essentially cease to be paid for their work, and in many cases will therefore stop publishing the high-quality material that you're looking for.

I'm intrigued as to why someone, presumably tech-savvy, would do that?

We know they aren't oracles and come up with a lot of false information in response to factual questions.

My site never got much traffic from Google and I never wasted time on SEO. So I find it hard to care about losing clicks I didn't have.

But I do find it concerning that Google is effectively stealing the time I spend on research and not offering proper credit. I'm always careful to credit people and provide extensive links to the work of others on my site. But here Google and others are simply stealing that work, getting it wrong, and then claiming they did all the effort.

A lot of startups like Profound are going after the "AEO" (basically SEO but of AI engine) space and absolutely blowing up. Marketers are freaking out. It's crazy to see the search juggernaut finally getting threatened.

For some (unknown to me) reason the web pages that used to sustain themselves on very small, quiet ads that were shown on sides of the page, now require full page, annoying, shouting, focus stealing, one-minimal-x-closing-after-few-seconds ADS. Therefore AI summary is a panaceum for this sickness.

However I understand that pages that have articles written need money to pay for those articles. For some another (unknown to me) reason reading something by AI and summarizing it is not a copyright violation, but the work that has been done to prepare the valuable content (article) will not be rewarded, therefore extrapolating it to future I can see that the 'dead internet theory' is coming right up.

People will stop writing because they don't get rewarded, so AIs will start speaking and discussing with other AIs and the entropy might lower (as in the amount of information present in the internet) leaving us to AI generated content only.

Which is of course Google’s short-sighted goal. See also their push to switch to full “AI mode” search which doesn’t show results at all.

It's a weird goal to me. Like, what's their end game here? Offer to manipulate the AI responses for ad money? Product placement in the summaries? I would hope those placements have to be disclosed as advertising, and it would immediately break trust in anything their AI outputs so surely that would only continue to harm them in the long run, no?

~57% of their revenue is from search advertising. How do they plan on replacing that?

In a sense this is similar to what Amazon has been doing in few countries. Find top selling products, get them cheaper from somewhere, rebrand them, rank them higher and sell them. They don't need to invest in market research like their competetors, they get all data from Amazon.com

At big tech scale, this is clearly anti-compete and piracy IMHO.

Except in this case they still rely on people to create content to train their AI on.

Maybe if the search wasnt full of ads and scams

...the same content that the AI was trained on, you mean?

people forget why users search - to find what they are looking for. as the saying goes, “No one wants a drill, they want a quarter inch hole.”

the first time i realized Google had a problem was when i used ChatGPT to search for Youtube videos, and compared to Youtube’s search, it was an order of magnitude easier to find the exact videos i was looking for.

Hallucinations are not a problem in a query like this, because i have what i need to evaluate the results: did i find interesting Youtube videos to watch? did i find what i was looking for?

generally speaking, users seek to minimize the effort required to achieve their goals.

There is (IMO) still a lot of value in having a searchable Internet index. If AI summaries were the only option it would be very difficult to know whether something is influencing the AI.

The problem is, of course, that we've already lost that battle with Google and other search providers. We know they're influencing the results. There is no open Internet anymore, but at least we can check the different search indices against each other. Checking different AI summaries against each other seems a pretty fruitless endeavor.

Google introduced its Google Knowledge Graph in 2012 and for sure it caused the drop in website clicks but I would say not that significant. People want quality content and they will always look for quality websites with or without AI overviews. My digital marketing professor once said that customers who look beyond first page results are the most valuable ones, because they are dedicated users and customers. People who read AI overviews won't be your first class users and customers.

What is the long term plan for data acquisition?

1. Use existing websites for training data

2. Replace search traffic with AI prompts, thereby destroying the economic incentive for websites to publish data

3. ?

Step 3 is "train on synthetic data generated by previous AI models" - creating an inevitable quality death spiral as each generation trains on increasingly derivative content.

Not any AI tho.

I have replaced SEO with Perplexity AI only. It isn't a chatbot but it actually search for what you are looking for and most importantly, it shows all the sources it used.

Depending on the question I can get anywhere from 10 to 40 sources. No other AI service provides that, they use the data from their training model only which in my experience, is full of errors, incomplete, cannot answer or altogether.

Google's AI overviews gives you sources. The sources don't always say what Google AI thinks it says. Or, Google will mix up two sources that are talking about totally different things, assume they're the same thing, and then show you nonsense generated from the mix.

I don't immediately assume that Perplexity will be any better off. Citing sources is great, but I'd rather just read the sources myself rather than assuming that the AI did anywhere a good job of actually summarizing them properly. At that point, what does the AI actually usefully bring to the table?

Almost all other AI do that as well. ChatGPT will show you like 10+ sources, it'll put it next to the part of the answer that the source was used for too.

Huh? All of the other AI service provide that. Geminii, Claude, GPT.

Why could i perform a web search that leads me to multiple results with cloudflare identity checks and ad spam when i can just use a llm..

Knowing that your content is unlikely to be seen by many humans, and is mainly just feeding an AI is pretty discouraging. AI is great at detecting patterns, if content creations is discouraged, and more AI content is generated, AI content is likely to become so homogeneous that the internet becomes more of an echo chamber (than it already is).

I think it's a google problem. The AI summary is often times wrong so I don't bother. But the pages are garbage as well, so normal users won't click on that looking for information. Dark forest and all that. Pages started to optimize for Google and not humans. Humans don't visit anymore. Duh

Yep, I can't remember when was the last time I've visited a SEO optimized site but I still had the bitter taste that I felt when I last visited it:

- searches for "How to do XYZ" and click one of the site

- "what is xyz"

- "why xyz matters"

- "preparations before xyz"

- "what you might encounter when xyz"

Sounds reasonable and in theory should be useful, but the actual useful info are only stuffed in 1-2 lines of multi paragraphs on tons of sections that I don't care about.

To be fair, Google's actual search couldn't be much worse than it was lately. It's like they really try to get all the spam, clickbait and scams right at the top.

The AI overview sucks but it can't really be a lot worse than that :)

I have a lot of confidence that Google will figure out a way to do it.

The same economic incentives that led to SEO slop are still there in my opinion.

More "content" equals more opportunity to integrate ads even if they are not woven into the AI response directly. It will be tuned to allow and all that changes is cutting out the website provider.

Google is incapable/unwilling to do anything beyond flooding the world with ads. They don't have a great track record of actually selling things to people for money.

What current incentive is left for people to publish on the internet?

Discovery mechanisms are less effective than before, people no longer visit your website, copyright is dead and in the end we're just feeding an insatiable machine with slave labour. Or am I missing something ?

What was the initial incentive for people to publish on the internet before ad revenue was a thing?

I've written a bit about this issue as well, coming from someone working at a company that partially relies on organic search results. It's been interesting (And slightly worrying) to see the shift and layoffs happening here already.

https://sasjakoning.com/blog/how-google-s-new-ai-overview-is...

I have to say that the comments here do offer a great alternative perspective as to how terrible the web has been to navigate before AI Overviews became a thing.

And thank God! It does. I’m done dealing with bazillion shitty websites with bad, slow, performance, bad ui and dark patterns. All I need is an information in a convenient format and that is what AI tools provide to me.

What's interesting is that:

0. Internet is initially pretty good.

1. Google introduces search algorithm that is pretty good.

2. SEO becomes a thing because of Google, and makes the web bad.

3. AI (including Google's AI) bypasses that.

4. The web is eradicated, and Google/other AI companies are the only place where you can get information...

Seems like the web would have been better off without Google.

All you need is good information and AI tools are giving you information without you knowing whether or not it is any good. You may think it is good, but unless you know more about the answer to your query than what you needed to create it you won't be able to tell the difference. If you did then you would not have been asking in the first place. Effectively you are now believing in an oracle.

Okay, but when those sites go out of business, where does the AI get its information from? This is obviously not sustainable.

But that also kills the good sites.

For the most part there really is no need to use search in the traditional sense for knowledge. For information it’s still the only because llms are not reliable. But ChatGPT must have taken a huge dent in google’s traffic.

I hope the small web will thrive again once the profit incentive for putting content on the web ceases to exist so SEO/dark-pattern heavy players will give up and stop suppressing valuable (altruistic?) stuff.

I feel like there should be two modes - search and answer. It's helpful to get an AI summarize answer like 90% of the time. But the other 10%, I am searching for something specific.

I use Perplexity's Comet browser part-time now. I feel like what makes me annoyed about AI overview summaries is that sometimes I really just need to get the actual site itself and not a summary. For example, I needed to find EC2 pricing information and Perplexity's default search gave me a summary answer. I was looking for Vantage.sh's instance info site.

> Google users are less likely to click on a link when they encounter search pages with AI summaries

Well, doh:

"Do I just read the AI summary? Or click past five pages of ads and spam to maybe find an organic link to something real?"

I find this claim massivy exaggerated.

This means searches are still happening, just being routed elsewhere?

I noticed Google's new AI summary let's me click on a link in the summary and the links are posted to the right.

Those clicks are available, might not be discovered yet, curious though if those show up anywhere as data.

Google being able to create summaries off actual web search results will be an interesting take compared to other models trying to get the same done without similar search results at their disposal.

The new search engine could be google doing the search and compiling the results for us how we do manually.

> Google being able to create summaries off actual web search results will be an interesting take compared to other models trying to get the same done without similar search results at their disposal.

And may get them in some anti-trust trouble once publishers start fighting back, similar to AMP, or their thing with Genius and song lyrics. Turns out site owners don't like when Google takes their content and displays it to users without forcing said users to click through to the actual website.

They have decades of data to map queries to pages. They also have access to crawl the pages in advance.

We (Geostar.ai) work with many brands and companies that have experienced near-death situations caused by Google's AI Overviews. The negative impact this feature has had on people's livelihoods is heartbreaking to witness.

Just today, I met with a small business owner who showed me that AIO is warning users that his business is a scam, based on bogus evidence (some unrelated brands). It's a new level of bullshit. There's not much these businesses can do other than playing the new GEO game if they want to get traffic from Google.

Who knows if Google will even present any search results other than AIO a few years from now.

I pay 20$/mo for chatGPT. I find searching through websites for information feels very outdated. I have some websites I specifically visit (e.g. aggregators like HN, journalism like WSJ), but if I want information I am going to have chatGPT present it to me in a manner tailored to my specific investigation. I do still google things when I want to find a particular thing, such as a product link, but for general information I am going to use an LLM.

> So more people could be walking away from a search with the wrong information.

I'd actually be very interested in some real research about this. My impression is that in general, SEO-optimized sites are (intentionally) so bad at transmitting information that the difference between an average person "doing their own research" on these sites vs reading the AI overview would either be negligible, or in favor of the AI summaries.

I think this will be the end of Google as a search engine. I don't see how website owners don't start charging bots for scraping their content.

It's definitely the beginning of the end of Google Search IMO. Extremely small sample size, but me and many people I know have started running the majority of searches that end in a question mark (actual questions) in an LLM, and not Google's LLM. Google is only used as a sort of phone book - when I need to look up the URL of a site by inputting the name, or when I want to find a particular article I previously read. I would say my usage of Google has reduced by about 75% (seat-of-the-pants estimate). It's just better to do it this way, and I have to imagine that this sentiment will spread.

Google will have to survive on other products, like YouTube. I see a massive contraction of their employee base in the not-so-distant future. Low-return products that are subsidized by the massive revenue of search will likely be cut as well if they can't be monetized more effectively (which will ruin them).

See: "Introducing pay per crawl: Enabling content owners to charge AI crawlers for access"

https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-pay-per-crawl/

I feel like the discussion here is missing the point. It doesn't matter if the AI overview is correct or not, it doesn't matter if you can turn it off or not. People are using it instead of visiting actual websites. Google has copied the entire World Wide Web into their LLM and now people not using the web anymore! We have bemoaned the fact that Facebook and Twitter replaced most of the web for most people, but now it's not even those, it's a single LLM owned and controlled by a single corporation.

Is there an appreciable difference between a company that controls what information is surfaced via pagerank and one that does so via LLM?

Remember the past scandals with google up/downranking various things? This isn't a new problem. Wrt how the average person gets information google doesn't really have more control because people aren't clicking through as much.

As I understand it they are saying users waste significantly less time on search if there are AI overviews. Is it really bad? Not from users perspective.

People only click from search when they have actual need to visit the site. E-commerce, image/video content, social media, etc.

That is pretty much as it should be.

This! Why would I go and read 2000 words optimized article for SEO when I can get the answer in one line?

I only go to a website to perform an action as you said.

As one of the creators whose entire business relied on website clicks for long-form, high-quality content, which is now being amalgamated into AI slop, I can confirm that search clicks are WAY down. I write a free bi-weekly newsletter/blog, which has been the primary lead gen for my consulting business. No particular effort at SEO, but up until 6 months ago, I was highly ranked on many terms. Now, my newsletter signups and leads are almost at a standstill.

AI Overviews are great for users but brutal for publishers. Studies show sites lose roughly 40–50% of clicks when these summaries appear. It feels like another step toward Google keeping users on the SERP, instead of sending traffic out.

If this sticks, creators will either need to optimize for being included in the AI answer or focus more on direct channels (newsletters, communities) to survive.

This situation makes sense since everyone wants quick answers, and AI summaries are really convenient. A lot of people just read the summary without clicking through to the original content. But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic. Does anyone have ideas on how to balance both user needs and support for creators?

> But this can be a real problem for creators who rely on traffic.

Wait.. why would that creator be paid for the traffic if I'm not buying any shitty overpriced product advertised on these scammy ads, ever? Especially when I don't even see these thanks to ublock.

If searchers (people, I assume) are not clicking on content links like they used to, it's safe to assume that they are not clicking on ad links as well. Google is digging their own grave here. That being said, given the zeitgeist, they really have no choice but to offer AI summaries at least on par with the competition.

I just wonder

if AI will destroy the internet... what it will use to train the next generation on? If people go to AI instead of reddit and stack overflow, what will they train the next models on? They have used reddit extensively to train the first GPT models.

I guess that's "tomorrow's problem" though

> if AI will destroy the internet... what it will use to train the next generation on?

Spying on you when you're fixing your carburetor and then making a how-to guide for other people.

Maybe the future is "LLMO" instead of SEO, where pages are optimized to be more easily readable and navigable by LLMs and agents. Ironically this would make them better IMO, less Javascript bloat, faster load times, no cookies or tracking...

This is not the future. It's already a thing. The content_marketing subreddit has been talking about this for months: https://www.reddit.com/r/content_marketing/

There isn't a clever new acronym for it yet, but I'm sure it's coming. Right now people are just calling it LLM SEO. I assume the discipline will someday be shortened to AIO or similar.

Here's a relevant post from 22 days ago with some good methodology and results: https://www.reddit.com/r/content_marketing/comments/1lq04yd/...

Here's one from 2 months ago with methodology of findings and action items for executing LLM SEO: https://www.reddit.com/r/content_marketing/comments/1kzafm9/...

The AI overview doesn't (for me) cause a big drop in clicking on sites.

But AI as a product most certainly does! I was trying to figure out why a certain AWS tool stopped working, and Gemini figured it out for me. In the past I would have browsed multiple forums to figure out it.

I find I read the AI summary then realise I prefer and trust ChatGPT’s answer more so copy my query into that and go from there. Having below average “chat” suggestions in a non-chat interface with loads of SERP cruft feels pointless.

I'm going to call good old "supply & demand" at this.

There was a demand for information, and people made websites to make that information easily accessible. The market was working.

Then cheap/free hosting combined with Google Ads came along incentivized the market to SPAM the internet with SEO-optimized websites which makes that information just as inaccessible as the market could possibly tolerate. Basically the market converged on enshittification, rather than excellence.

The result of that was that users were forced to search, the first SEO spam, then the second, then the third and maybe somewhere along the line they found what they were really looking for, from a real website. The market just barely supplied what there was a demand for.

But thanks to AI and LLMs, the power has now shifted back to the users, and we can sidestep all the Google Ads SEO SPAM enshittification nonsense. If this is done via ChatGpt, DDG Chat or Google AI overviews, I don't really care.

Once again we have gained easy access to information without any ill-incentivized middle men making the process cumbersome. This is absolutely a good thing. If this means the death of Google Ads funded content farms, I'm all for it.

The niche sites which contains real information was never funded or driven by Google Ads in the first place, so hopefully they won't buckle under during this minor AI apocalypse.

I find this rather worrying, because the summaries I look at are frequently wrong or misleading.

Over the last years I've moved over a lot of initial search to Wikipedia, which either answers directly or provides useful links.

It is time to bring back the search index.

I believe there is a place for a new but totally different “pagerank”. Perhaps one where “likely to be human made” scoring is the central metric.

And figure out how to keep crawlers away.

Tool websites and game websites should not have such a big impact

Working as designed :) enjoy the upcoming informational dark age

Pay per click model Should die , it’s really ugly world where you need to fight through loads of ads to get tiny bit of information.

People will go to museums to see how complicated pre-ai era was

Yep, there’s so much hate for people who don’t read past the headline, but if you actually click on the articles the websites are almost unusable.

It's unfortunate, but websites now make content for AI. We used to use a browser, to view a site, to gain information. Now we use an AI, to tell us the information.

This is most definitely because AI is first thing on the top. If it was the last one, the situation would be much different. Nice tactic to further hype AI.

I've seen blatantly wrong stuff in that overview too many times, I just ignore it now.

To be fair, the actual results are often even worse. I'm pretty sure we're close to the point where our favorite AI prompt replaces classic googling. While it will get a lot of the answer wrong, it will lead to the right result faster than plain searches. If nothing else, because refining our search at the AI prompt will be way easier than in classic google. Google knows and needs to stay on top of this paradigm change, but I guess doesn't know how to monetize AI search yet so it doesn't want to force the change (yet).

I recently typo'd something and the AI box just fabricated a semi-plausible story about how the ancient X did Y.

I am not sure how everyone is ignoring that or just getting along with it. I've had it return that the earth population is 10bn which is blatantly wrong and infuriating. It hallucinates harder than regular LLMs which are already bad for getting reliable answers.

At what point does this remove the 'platform provider' defense for wrong or defamatory information generated by Google & Co?

I thought the search clicks was a massive driver of data for the search engine. How is this not a bad thing for the search engine company?

I don't like having both AI overview and search results in the same page. I am looking for either one and not both usually...

The web is dying.

My question here is: why would Google try to actively sabotage, possibly even devastate the very backbone cash cow that is all those spammy, SEO-laden search and ad results right below its own AI overview, that's displacing them for engine users who don't bother with the rest (I thing I personally avoid because fuck you hallucinating AI overview)

Anyone have any ideas?

EDIT: Also, the irony of Google, which for years harped on and on about working to fight incorrect, erroneous and also even "misinformation-laden" search results, now making a hallucinating AI that often makes up outright bullshit with authority as its primary, first-line result for information. Truly a company that bathes in an ever deeper pool of shit the bigger it grows.

I use a user agent switcher extension to tell Google I am browsing with Lynx to remove some of the annoyances.

The AI overview is wrong in most of the time when I check the referenced links. It's even worse than ads.

I installed a plugin that removes them, most of the time the answers it gives are complete dogwater

Some HNers said AI overviews sucked and they would never use them, and here it is.

AI overviews are search. It's the next iteration of how web searching works.

(forgot what type of flour you need for bread in supermarket)

innocently googles 'flour bread'

half the screen, CONTINUE WITH GOOGLE - stay in browser, click

COOKIES We and our 917 partners CARE ABOUT YOUR PRIVACY, click, click,

NEWSLETTER, NEWSLETTER, click, rotate screen because the overlay is to big, click Im sad person who's doesn't want daily bread in his mailbox.

APP APP APP, install APP, click click, can't hit the x, let it be

5 pages with autoplay video and SEO slop

I'm enjoying AI, while it lasts.

This is all nice while the AI overview has no ads in it. Wait until it gets enshittified, and I have a feeling AI overview would be so infested with ads that people would rather block it and proceed to reading the actual links.

All this said, I am guilty of using this a lot these days - while it is still ad-free. I just ask chatgpt.com to give me a recipe of "XYZ" and it gives it immediately without any annoying repetitive content.

Several factors are at play here, which are somewhat contradictive:

1. Publishers feel entitled to traffic, because Google send them traffic in recent years. See [1] for example:

> "Google's core search engine service is misusing web content for Google's AI Overviews in Google Search, which have caused, and continue to cause, significant harm to publishers, including news publishers in the form of traffic, readership and revenue loss," the document said.

> "Publishers using Google Search do not have the option to opt out from their material being ingested for Google's AI large language model training and/or from being crawled for summaries, without losing their ability to appear in Google's general search results page," the complaint said.

I have zero pity for these publishers.

2. Not all traffic is created equal. Does a business really lose customers, just because traffic goes down? Maybe that traffic wouldn't have converted anyways. This is basically the old piracy discussion revamped with businesses arguing that every single copy of a movie or a game would've been a customer. It's idiotic.

3. But: Google is now a content provider and different rules apply for those than being merely on a comparable level like an ISP. This has been discussed for years with social networks in minds. Hence, Google needs to be held accountable for providing harmful information (such as in another story here: the temperature for heating pork and when food safety is affected).

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overview...

if you can get answer in 1 step, why 2?

things like "gemini said" and "gpt said" will enter common lingo like "google it" did in the 2010s

My Google feed (the one that shows up on some Android phones) is 90% articles that could be answered in the headline: "This one ingredient improves the taste of your potato salad." Of course you have to click through and read, read, read till you find it.

It's why things like /r/savedyouaclick exist.

no reason not to block Googlebot now...

Good. About time search dies

I've got years of professional SEO experience, and it's clear SEO is dead for information, especially once you use o3 type Ai models daily.

To be frank, good riddance. Information sites were being manipulated on such levels it was ridiculous.

Anyways, I expect e-commerce CTR to get SO MUCH better, so overall it'll just be a shift away from SEO over to PPC, or maybe a little bit of both.

I type -ai every time

More and more it seems the internet is headed to the outcome seen in “Altered Carbon”: populated by AI almost exclusively, full of slop, invisible by the humans that created it originally. An abandoned outpost on a long line of things humans have abandoned.

Warms my heart. Clicking ad-infested bullshit articles and wasting many minutes trying to find the line where the answer lies was the worst internet experience of the last decade. I am glad crappy ad-blogging is dying.

But hey, I'm sure Google's quarterly earnings are doing just fine

They were fine, though.

If you're tired of this BS can I encourage you to make:

https://noai.duckduckgo.com/

Your default search engine. AI overviews begone.

Well, yeah.

The enshitification of search engines is driving me more and more to LLMs for all their warts. I can usually force them to provide sources and do my search that way.

AI systems still struggle with hallucination, especially when your intent of the query is to obtain the latest information. These models have become very good at handling stored information, but their ability to stay updated remains slow. There is a large volume of queries whose responses and underlying concepts don't change much, and the current AI systems, through innovation and user-friendly interfaces, has managed to cast a wide net over such pre-learned responses.

However, unless these AI base model businesses create strong enough incentives for information owners to provide updates and engage in information pipelines that provide fresh data, the current moat of AI might not extend far enough to cover the full spectrum of queries.

The “fossil fuel” of LLMs-static public internet data-is running out.

Current efforts in RL help systems answer queries beyond their pre-learned knowledge by expanding on the user’s prompt, wherein the system ventures into unknown data territories through agents and self-talk, resulting in action-result memories. These, in turn, serve as a large enough context-rich prompt to have all the needles-in-hay-stack that form the final answer or response. This is made possible by large context windows.

For live internet queries, RL can work by expanding context with latest results fetched from the public web using a crawler. However, this is often done without the explicit consent from information providers and offers them little incentive beyond a link in the AI’s response summary. As a result, some providers have started withholding data, and many services now offer tools to block AI crawlers. Meanwhile, multimodal AI systems-capable of understanding text, visuals, and audio-are developing agents that can access content through simulated browser use, effectively bypassing traditional crawler firewalls.

This reality highlights the need for a good incentive system for information providers, one that encourages them to share dense, efficiently and ai-structured data. Certain domains have already begun embracing this and sharing their information in ai-native formats, since they have no moat in that information and rather see positive incentives - for example, certain documentation websites for tools and frameworks now provide formatted versions of their docs at /LLMs.txt links.

If the information is the resource exchanged on these internet pathways, businesses fundamentally operate either by generating this resource or by retrieving it once it exists, and the other businesses enable this whole endeavour. Ultimately, individuals and organizations will, seek, share and exchange information in ways that enables them to efficiently take decisions and their next actions. Therefore, the incentive to access the most up-to-date information becomes critical when those actions depend on accuracy and timeliness.

Hard to take a publication seriously when its content is editorialized to this degree. Even the title is trying to impose itself onto the reader.

First they came for the stackoverflow comments, and I said nothing, for stackoverflow is notorious for being full of jerks.

Then they came for the search engine clicks, and I said nothing, because monetised search contributed heavily to the enshittification of the internet.

Great so far. Can AI kill off social media and internet surveillance next?

Who will provide the training data for AI when Google has stolen everyone's audience and revenue?

It saves so much time looking at slop websites like arstechnica. Those kinds of websites are already made up content anyway, so there’s no real difference in the factual content.

In other news, water makes things wet

Reply on news.ycombinator.com