3 ms·

Google Images is filling up with AI slop to the point of unusability for some purposes, even content that isn't actively engaging in SEO shenanigans is getting

Google Images is filling up with AI slop to the point of unusability for some purposes, even content that isn't actively engaging in SEO shenanigans is getting pushed to the top. In some cases even the key image that Google displays first on a normal search is fake, like when searching for the "tank man" prioritized showing a fake AI selfie from the mans perspective. It's still there in fact, just not the first result anymore, but Google might have demoted it manually after the backlash. Looking to browse works by a specific artist? Good luck, Google evidently can't tell the difference between a genuine J. C. Leyendecker piece and anything shat out by a "Leyendecker style" image generation model. Search for "Yoji Shinkawa" and this https://i.imgur.com/RYghaoY.png https://i.imgur.com/RYghaoY.png is currently the first thing you see, which isn't even close to his style, but Google has somehow determined it's the image that best represents him. The full images page shows his actual work but interspersed about half-and-half with AI imitations. My speculation is that Google prioritizes showing recent results, presumed to be the freshest most up-to-date information, but of course for a historical event like Tiananmen Square or an artist who died in 1951, nearly all of the fresh results past a certain point are AI simulacra.

KomoD 3y ago
Yeah that is a huge problem. Another search to try is "hand reference", tons of AI garbage
fouc 3y ago
I dislike the recency bias so much.
- guhcampos 3y ago
  I can't count how many times I needed a "until X" button, but it's an ever increasing trend.
spansoa 3y ago
I find DuckDuckGo's[0] (DDG) images feature to be a brilliant replacement for Google Images/Lens. Google Images doesn't let you view the actual resource anymore and disabled that feature years ago. DDG's image feature is crucial since it doesn't bring you to the site itself, it just points to the raw URL of where the asset resides and you can easily download it, without hunting the graphics down on the site itself, although DDG does offer a link to the page where the image was found. The important bit is pressing the 'View File' button. [0] https://duckduckgo.com/ https://duckduckgo.com/
- spacephysics 3y ago
  I think google got into legal trouble for doing this (linking directly to the source image, instead of to the site) Or they were at least threatened with legal action. I remember when it happened many of my friends were annoyed overnight
  - skywhopper 3y ago
    I doubt a legal case would succeed, and Google would know that. But the types of companies who threaten to sue over deep image linking are also the most likely to threaten not to sign contracts for content sharing with YouTube etc or for ad services. In other words, Google's other businesses create a liability for their search effectiveness.
  - StableAlkyne 3y ago
    If I recall right, it was over Getty Images, who were upset that people were right-clicking their images to save them from the image search (with the watermark) instead of clicking through to the page to be prompted to buy it So rather than just delist Getty and solve the problem, they decided to make their product objectively worse
AlienRobot 3y ago
It's a trifecta of lies: 1. Domain-specific engines is too complicated. Let's have a general purpose search engine. 2. Too many buttons is too complicated. Let's have a single search box. 3. Guessing what you want when you are anonymous is too complicated. We need your search history to tailor your search for you. Please, search engines, hear me: you can not simplify the needs and wants of 7 billion people and zettabytes of online content into a single little shitty search box! It's too complicated! At this point the only thing these search engines are good for is for finding the URL of something you already know the name of. It's a phone book. I type Hacker News on google, it tells me its phone number: https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/
- josefritz 3y ago
  Comically, when I google hackernews or even "Hacker News" I often get the other Hacker news first. Finding my preferred UI https://hckrnews.com/ https://hckrnews.com/ that's not even in the first page of results. Rajat's version https://hckrnws.com/ https://hckrnws.com/... nowhere to be seen. Google is becoming a mediocre phone book.
- RespectYourself 3y ago
  #3 is certainly bullshit, but Yahoo failed because of #1. Forcing a user to drill down through hundreds or thousands of categories to do a search is absurd, don't you think? What other buttons do you want? But for sure Google has crippled its core product. First they removed the + option, which forced the inclusion of words (their excuse was that it "interfered" with their stupid "Google Plus" product which is now gone). Yes you can use "allintext:" but come on. I'm not even sure that's honored anyway. And the removal of the ability to exclude certain sites from results.
  - slater 3y ago
    > Forcing a user to drill down through hundreds or thousands of categories to do a search is absurd, don't you think Are you saying that's how Yahoo worked? IIRC, that was optional, they always had the search box: https://web.archive.org/web/19961023235123/http://www10.yahoo.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/19961023235123/http://www10.yaho...
phillipcarter 3y ago
This one was fun: > like when searching for the "tank man" prioritized showing a fake AI selfie from the mans perspective In this case the label is that it's a AI-generated and the source is an article talking about that AI-generated picture.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

KomoD 3y ago

Yeah that is a huge problem. Another search to try is "hand reference", tons of AI garbage

fouc 3y ago

I dislike the recency bias so much.

guhcampos 3y ago
I can't count how many times I needed a "until X" button, but it's an ever increasing trend.

spansoa 3y ago

I find DuckDuckGo's[0] (DDG) images feature to be a brilliant replacement for Google Images/Lens. Google Images doesn't let you view the actual resource anymore and disabled that feature years ago. DDG's image feature is crucial since it doesn't bring you to the site itself, it just points to the raw URL of where the asset resides and you can easily download it, without hunting the graphics down on the site itself, although DDG does offer a link to the page where the image was found. The important bit is pressing the 'View File' button. [0] https://duckduckgo.com/ https://duckduckgo.com/

spacephysics 3y ago
I think google got into legal trouble for doing this (linking directly to the source image, instead of to the site) Or they were at least threatened with legal action. I remember when it happened many of my friends were annoyed overnight
- skywhopper 3y ago
  I doubt a legal case would succeed, and Google would know that. But the types of companies who threaten to sue over deep image linking are also the most likely to threaten not to sign contracts for content sharing with YouTube etc or for ad services. In other words, Google's other businesses create a liability for their search effectiveness.
- StableAlkyne 3y ago
  If I recall right, it was over Getty Images, who were upset that people were right-clicking their images to save them from the image search (with the watermark) instead of clicking through to the page to be prompted to buy it So rather than just delist Getty and solve the problem, they decided to make their product objectively worse

AlienRobot 3y ago

It's a trifecta of lies: 1. Domain-specific engines is too complicated. Let's have a general purpose search engine. 2. Too many buttons is too complicated. Let's have a single search box. 3. Guessing what you want when you are anonymous is too complicated. We need your search history to tailor your search for you. Please, search engines, hear me: you can not simplify the needs and wants of 7 billion people and zettabytes of online content into a single little shitty search box! It's too complicated! At this point the only thing these search engines are good for is for finding the URL of something you already know the name of. It's a phone book. I type Hacker News on google, it tells me its phone number: https://news.ycombinator.com/ https://news.ycombinator.com/

josefritz 3y ago
Comically, when I google hackernews or even "Hacker News" I often get the other Hacker news first. Finding my preferred UI https://hckrnews.com/ https://hckrnews.com/ that's not even in the first page of results. Rajat's version https://hckrnws.com/ https://hckrnws.com/... nowhere to be seen. Google is becoming a mediocre phone book.
RespectYourself 3y ago
#3 is certainly bullshit, but Yahoo failed because of #1. Forcing a user to drill down through hundreds or thousands of categories to do a search is absurd, don't you think? What other buttons do you want? But for sure Google has crippled its core product. First they removed the + option, which forced the inclusion of words (their excuse was that it "interfered" with their stupid "Google Plus" product which is now gone). Yes you can use "allintext:" but come on. I'm not even sure that's honored anyway. And the removal of the ability to exclude certain sites from results.
- slater 3y ago
  > Forcing a user to drill down through hundreds or thousands of categories to do a search is absurd, don't you think Are you saying that's how Yahoo worked? IIRC, that was optional, they always had the search box: https://web.archive.org/web/19961023235123/http://www10.yahoo.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/19961023235123/http://www10.yaho...

phillipcarter 3y ago

This one was fun: > like when searching for the "tank man" prioritized showing a fake AI selfie from the mans perspective In this case the label is that it's a AI-generated and the source is an article talking about that AI-generated picture.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]