Skip to content

Is Google about to destroy the web?

Technology
86 60 913
  • Google says a new AI tool on its search engine will rejuvenate the internet. Others predict an apocalypse for websites. One thing is clear: the current chapter of online history is careening towards its end. Welcome to the "machine web".

    The web is built on a simple bargain – websites let search engines like Google slurp up their content, free of charge, and Google Search sends people to websites in exchange, where they buy things and look at adverts. That's how most sites make money.

    An estimated 68% of internet activity starts on search engines and about 90% of searches happen on Google. If the internet is a garden, Google is the Sun that lets the flowers grow.

    This arrangement held strong for decades, but a seemingly minor change has some convinced that the system is crumbling. You'll soon see a new AI tool on Google Search. You may find it very useful. But if critics' predictions come true, it will also have seismic consequences for the internet. They paint a picture where quality information could grow scarcer online and large numbers of people might lose their jobs. Optimists say instead this could improve the web's business model and expand opportunities to find great content. But, for better or worse, your digital experiences may never be the same again.

    On 20 May 2025, Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai walked on stage at the company's annual developer conference. It's been a year since the launch of AI Overviews, the AI-generated responses you've probably seen at the top of Google Search results. Now, Pichai said, Google is going further. "For those who want an end-to-end AI Search experience, we are introducing an all-new AI Mode," he said. "It's a total reimagining of Search."

    You might be sceptical after years of AI hype, but this, for once, is the real deal.

    That fucking AI thing absolutely sucks for anything factual. I’m a journalist and noticed that it gleefully listed all sorts of factual errors in that AI summary. Stuff that you can see correctly on the original pages, but it somehow manages to misinterpret everything and shows incorrect information.

    And knowing how lazy people are these days, most will happily accept Google’s incorrect information as fact. It’s making me very, very nervous for the future.

  • Quit.... Using... Google... Search

    What’s the best alternative, in your opinion? I’ve tried Bing and DuckDuckGo, but both showed me worse results for my particular searches.

    I just want classic Google Search back, before everything got turned to shit. But I fear that doesn’t really exist since there’s such an economic incentive behind how search engines rank and show results.

  • That fucking AI thing absolutely sucks for anything factual. I’m a journalist and noticed that it gleefully listed all sorts of factual errors in that AI summary. Stuff that you can see correctly on the original pages, but it somehow manages to misinterpret everything and shows incorrect information.

    And knowing how lazy people are these days, most will happily accept Google’s incorrect information as fact. It’s making me very, very nervous for the future.

    My wife and I both googled the same question yesterday and it gave us both completely different answers.

  • What’s the best alternative, in your opinion? I’ve tried Bing and DuckDuckGo, but both showed me worse results for my particular searches.

    I just want classic Google Search back, before everything got turned to shit. But I fear that doesn’t really exist since there’s such an economic incentive behind how search engines rank and show results.

    Searxng - any of the instances hosted in Germany
    Brave search - but only search

  • What’s the best alternative, in your opinion? I’ve tried Bing and DuckDuckGo, but both showed me worse results for my particular searches.

    I just want classic Google Search back, before everything got turned to shit. But I fear that doesn’t really exist since there’s such an economic incentive behind how search engines rank and show results.

    If you can afford to spend 10 bucks a month for a search engine, Kagi is pretty sleek. No ads, you can block/prioritize websites, good bangs, convinient CSS field for easy modding.

    It does AI stuff too, but it's optional as the other non-standard search output fields.

  • But the point is that significantly lower traffic will kill the business model of many websites, and thus kill many websites.

    I remember it when good websites didn't have any business model at all because there weren't anyone busy with inventing it, all people involved spent their effort on making the website valuable.

    The business models were in TV and radio outside of the web.

    I'm not old, I'm 29.

  • Google says a new AI tool on its search engine will rejuvenate the internet. Others predict an apocalypse for websites. One thing is clear: the current chapter of online history is careening towards its end. Welcome to the "machine web".

    The web is built on a simple bargain – websites let search engines like Google slurp up their content, free of charge, and Google Search sends people to websites in exchange, where they buy things and look at adverts. That's how most sites make money.

    An estimated 68% of internet activity starts on search engines and about 90% of searches happen on Google. If the internet is a garden, Google is the Sun that lets the flowers grow.

    This arrangement held strong for decades, but a seemingly minor change has some convinced that the system is crumbling. You'll soon see a new AI tool on Google Search. You may find it very useful. But if critics' predictions come true, it will also have seismic consequences for the internet. They paint a picture where quality information could grow scarcer online and large numbers of people might lose their jobs. Optimists say instead this could improve the web's business model and expand opportunities to find great content. But, for better or worse, your digital experiences may never be the same again.

    On 20 May 2025, Google's chief executive Sundar Pichai walked on stage at the company's annual developer conference. It's been a year since the launch of AI Overviews, the AI-generated responses you've probably seen at the top of Google Search results. Now, Pichai said, Google is going further. "For those who want an end-to-end AI Search experience, we are introducing an all-new AI Mode," he said. "It's a total reimagining of Search."

    You might be sceptical after years of AI hype, but this, for once, is the real deal.

    Dead Internet theorists were right, just a half decade or so early.

  • But it’s the normies we need to reach.

    Hey, is that the ICQ logo?

  • AI is making searching easier and more convenient and reducing the amount of clicks (often to zero) you need before you get the inaccurate information you didn't want.

    Ftfy

  • What’s wrong with Google? AI answers are pretty convenient.

    Even if you want AI answers, you can use DuckDuckGo. They have an AI assistant too, and even it does better than Google's at not hallucinating as much.

  • "about to destroy the web" ???

    Where have you been these last 10 years? It's been getting worse for a long time, even before AI. It's just getting worse quicker now.

    This is fundamentally worse than a lot of what we've seen already though, is it not?

    AI overviews are parasitic to traffic itself. If AI overviews are where people begin to go for information, websites get zero ad revenue, subscription revenue, or even traffic that can change their ranking in search.

    Previous changes just did things like pulling a little better context previews from sites, which only somewhat decreased traffic, and adding more ads, which just made the experience of browsing worse, but this eliminates the entire business model of every website completely if Google continues pushing down this path.

    It centralizes all actual traffic solely into Google, yet Google would still be relying on the sites it's eliminating the traffic of for its information. Those sites cut costs by replacing human writers with more and more AI models, search quality gets infinitely worse, sourcing from articles that themselves were sourced from nothing, then most websites which are no longer receiving enough traffic to be profitable collapse.

  • What do you imagine 'destroying the web' looks like if not killing off huge swaths of websites that relied on traffic/ads to sustain themselves? Do you imagine a man has to bleed all the way out before we can say he's going to die, or is it sufficient to look at the severity of the wound to critical systems in his body and determine that he is probably going to die?

    Not to mention the fact that the remaining sites that can still hold on, but would just have to cut costs, will just start using language models like Google's to generate content on their website, which will only worsen the quality of Google's own answers over time, which will then generate even worse articles, etc etc.

    It doesn't just create a monetization death spiral, it also makes it harder and harder for answers to be sourced reliably, making Google's own service worse while all the sites hanging on rely on their worse service to exist.

  • What’s the best alternative, in your opinion? I’ve tried Bing and DuckDuckGo, but both showed me worse results for my particular searches.

    I just want classic Google Search back, before everything got turned to shit. But I fear that doesn’t really exist since there’s such an economic incentive behind how search engines rank and show results.

    I've been using a combination of brave and ddg. Work with the filtering

    I was an SEO for 20+. Years. Google is dying as far as search relevancy. It's trying to transition to a new paradigm that prioritizes payment surrounding data than ads. Much more money in the data angle, and ads as we know them will be dying soon, replaced with more insipid product placements.

  • I've been using a combination of brave and ddg. Work with the filtering

    I was an SEO for 20+. Years. Google is dying as far as search relevancy. It's trying to transition to a new paradigm that prioritizes payment surrounding data than ads. Much more money in the data angle, and ads as we know them will be dying soon, replaced with more insipid product placements.

    I’ll check out Brave, it’s been mentioned a few times.

    I don’t mind companies making a dime, but now it’s really devolved in bad results that are profit-driven.

  • My wife and I both googled the same question yesterday and it gave us both completely different answers.

    Its a stochastic process

  • Not to mention the fact that the remaining sites that can still hold on, but would just have to cut costs, will just start using language models like Google's to generate content on their website, which will only worsen the quality of Google's own answers over time, which will then generate even worse articles, etc etc.

    It doesn't just create a monetization death spiral, it also makes it harder and harder for answers to be sourced reliably, making Google's own service worse while all the sites hanging on rely on their worse service to exist.

    Or paywalling literally everything so there's basically no easily-accessible content on the web anymore. But yeah I've been adding 'reddit' to most of my searches for years so I can get answers from actual people instead of full-page articles filled with AI-generated bullshit I don't care about, so that's a fair point.

  • I remember it when good websites didn't have any business model at all because there weren't anyone busy with inventing it, all people involved spent their effort on making the website valuable.

    The business models were in TV and radio outside of the web.

    I'm not old, I'm 29.

    I'm 52, I remember when websites were little more than 'Oh I guess we have to have an internet presence, so here's a website that's nothing more than an ad for our TV show, book, movie, etc.'

  • Hey, is that the ICQ logo?

    Yes!

  • Even if you want AI answers, you can use DuckDuckGo. They have an AI assistant too, and even it does better than Google's at not hallucinating as much.

    Braves is better imo. As far as a.i answers.

    I wish libre and it's search would evolve a bit. That's a solid browser

  • That fucking AI thing absolutely sucks for anything factual. I’m a journalist and noticed that it gleefully listed all sorts of factual errors in that AI summary. Stuff that you can see correctly on the original pages, but it somehow manages to misinterpret everything and shows incorrect information.

    And knowing how lazy people are these days, most will happily accept Google’s incorrect information as fact. It’s making me very, very nervous for the future.

    Sounds like it's perfectly accomplishing Google's goal to disinform. I suspect it will get more clever at sounding correct over time too.

  • 205 Stimmen
    53 Beiträge
    390 Aufrufe
    D
    Ya, it's annoying for sure... As I said, chicken and egg type thing. The market share has to be there before these companies will invest anything in linux. You'd think macos would be a gateway to them providing linux support but that doesn't seem to translate well.
  • 314 Stimmen
    141 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    zacryon@feddit.orgZ
    I see. If moving to another country, where you don't have to suffer such conditions, is also not an option then I hope you're looking for something else while you're at your current job. These are no conditions anyone should suffer.
  • 254 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    252 Aufrufe
    dojan@pawb.socialD
    Don’t assume evil when stupidity I didn't, though? I think that perhaps you missed the "I don’t think necessarily that people who perpetuate this problem are doing so out of malice" part. Scream racism all you want but you’re cheapening the meaning of the word and you’re not doing anyone a favor. I didn't invent this term. Darker patches on darker skin are harder to detect, just as facial features in the dark, on dark skin are garder to detect because there is literally less light to work with Computers don't see things the way we do. That's why steganography can be imperceptible to the human eye, and why adversarial examples work when the differences cannot be seen by humans. If a model is struggling at doing its job it's because the data is bad, be it the input data, or the training data. Historically one significant contributor has been that the datasets aren't particularly diverse, and white men end up as the default. It's why all the "AI" companies popped in "ethnically ambiguous" and other words into their prompts to coax their image generators into generating people that weren't white, and subsequently why these image generators gave us ethnically ambigaus memes and German nazi soldiers that were black.
  • 114 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    S
    I admire your positivity. I do not share it though, because from what I have seen, because even if there are open weights, the one with the biggest datacenter will in the future hold the most intelligent and performance model. Very similar to how even if storage space is very cheap today, large companies are holding all the data anyway. AI will go the same way, and thus the megacorps will and in some extent already are owning not only our data, but our thoughts and the ability to modify them. I mean, sponsored prompt injection is just the first thought modifying thing, imagine Google search sponsored hits, but instead it's a hyperconvincing AI response that subtly nudges you to a certain brand or way of thinking. Absolutely terrifies me, especially with all the research Meta has done on how to manipulate people's mood and behaviour through which social media posts they are presented with
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    468 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • Build Custom WordPress Themes Easily with WP 1-Click

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Was ist ChatGPT?

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 88 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    C
    Won't someone think of the shareholders?!