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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
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!"
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)"
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
132 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 149 ms ] threadhttps://arstechnica.com/google/2025/01/just-give-me-the-fing...
The AI overview sucks but it can't really be a lot worse than that :)
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.
And there's no AI garbage sitting in the top of the engine.
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.
People will go to museums to see how complicated pre-ai era was
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.
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.
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."
You're fine, you just lost a few verbal IQ points after fasting for 24 hours and doing blood work.
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)"
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.
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?"
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.
Except the other commenters didn't read the article either. Now you're all basically just LLM using the title as a prompt.
I do this on hackernews, and especially on news-sites I check (cleantechnica, electrec, reneweconomy) and I actively shun sites _without_ comments.
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.
At big tech scale, this is clearly anti-compete and piracy IMHO.