7 ms·

I can believe this. A lot of my google search usage now is something like: > "what is the type of wrench called for getting up into tight spaces" > AI search

by extr 1y ago

I can believe this. A lot of my google search usage now is something like: > "what is the type of wrench called for getting up into tight spaces" > AI search gives me an overview of wrench types (I was looking for "basin wrench") > new search "basin wrench amazon" > new search "basin wrench lowes" > maps.google.com "lowes" Notably, the information I was looking for was general knowledge. The only people "losing out" here are people running SEO-spammish websites that themselves (at this point) are basically hosting LLM-generated answers for me to find. These websites don't really need to exist now. I'm happy to funnel 100% of my traffic to websites that are representing real companies offering real services/info (ship me a wrench, sell me a wrench, show me a video on how to use the wrench, etc).

thewebguyd 1y ago
> The only people "losing out" here are people running SEO-spammish websites that themselves (at this point) are basically hosting webpages containing LLM-generated answers for me to find. Agreed. The web will be better off for everyone if these sites die out. Google is what brought these into existence in the first place, so I find it funny Google is now going to be one of the ones helping to kill them. Almost like they accidentally realized SEO got out of control so they have to fix their mistake.
- extr 1y ago
  At one point these SEO pages were in fact providing a real service, and you could view them as a sort of "manual", prototypical, distributed form of AI. Millions of people trying to understand what information was valuable and host webpages to satisfy the demand for that info, and get rewarded for doing so. It obviously went too far, but at one point, it did make sense to allow these websites to proliferate. I know without AI, I probably just would have clicked on the first link that said "types of wrenches" and read a little bit. I probably would have gotten my answer, it just wouldn't have been quite as laser-targeted to my exact question.
  - thewebguyd 1y ago
    True, the early days these sites were genuinely helpful. The monetization model was a little different though which is what I think kept them useful. You'd use the content just to drive traffic, which would result in ad clicks on your banner ads, etc. Then "content marketing" took over, and the content itself was now also used to sell a product or service, sort of an early form of influencer marketing and that is when I think it all started to go down hill. We stopped seeing the more in depth content which actually taught something, and more surface level keywords that were just used to drive you to their product/service. OTOH, the early web was also full of niche forums, most viewable without an account and indexable, of about any topic you could imagine where you could interact with knowledgeable folks in that niche. Google would have been more helpful to users by surfacing more of those forums vs. the blogs. Those forums are IMO the real loss here. Communities have moved into discord, or another closed platform that doesn't appear on the web, and many that require accounts or even invitations to just view read only.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  "Live by the SEORD, die by the SEORD" Or was it, "Live by the AdWord..."
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nicbou 1y ago
Hard disagree. I put a great deal of work into my website, putting hard-earned information on the internet for the first time. Now Google reaps all the value I create without as much as a "thank you".
- awongh 1y ago
  Unfortunately the new victims in the system of LLMs and the way they distribute knowledge is the specialized content website. Now an LLM just knows all the content you painstakingly gathered on your site. (It could also be, and is likely that it was also collected from other hard to find sites across the internet). The original web killed off the value of a certain kind of knowledge (encyclopedias, etc.) and LLMs will do the same. There are plenty of places to place the blame, but this is a function of any LLM, and a funcamental way LLMs work, not just a problem created and profited from by Google- for example the open-weight models, where no-one is actually profiting directly.
  - jjani 1y ago
    > There are plenty of places to place the blame, but this is a function of any LLM, and a funcamental way LLMs work, not just a problem created and profited from by Google- for example the open-weight models, where no-one is actually profiting directly. First time learning that scraping and training on data that they have often been explicitly disallowed to obtain for free or for that purpose by the rights holders is "fundamental to how LLMs work". If not, then there is no reason those who gathered the information wouldn't stand to profit by selling LLMs this data.
  - nothercastle 1y ago
    We killed forums and now were killing specialty websites. Soon we will get right back to pre internet levels of knowledge. Ai will be able to find all the stuff that was easily available in encyclopedias and text books and none of the stuff that made 90s-2000 internet great.
    - bluefirebrand 1y ago
what 1y ago
The LLM probably wouldn’t know the answer to your initial question without the SEO spam sites that they were trained on.
troyvit 1y ago
> The only people "losing out" here are people running SEO-spammish websites that themselves (at this point) are basically hosting LLM-generated answers for me to find. And anybody who creates original content and wishes -- not just to be paid for that content -- but for people to actually see that content and engage with it. IOW the very people who fed the LLM revolution.
- therealpygon 1y ago
  No one is using AI search to read Tammy’s original content unless it is terribly written, and no one is reading the 4 page fluff peice about the process of troubleshoot XY just to find the command that fixes their problem when they just want to solve the problem. People who want to engage with original content will; people just won’t be forced into appearing they are engaging with content just to find answers to simple questions or find the specific information they are looking for before they leave the site…like always. The result is likely to be more time on site with lower numbers of users; a more genuine reflection of an actual user base instead of search-fed propping of ad revenue numbers through effectively fake impressions. To that point: There is not a single website or blog, ever, that I started visiting regularly by having ended up there from a search result. Literally, ever. From something a friend shared? Something I saw on HN? Something I found through a recommendation, an article that was posted on a different site, etc? Absolutely.
  - troyvit 1y ago
    That's ... not what original content makers who aren't named Tammy are saying, including CNN and The Verge [1], the Daily Mail [2], and several lawsuits [3] [4]. In fact, the only people who seem to believe that AI search isn't negatively affecting content makers long-term is google and you, and google (for now) has a vested interest in believing that. Discovery isn't search, but search can be a form of discovery, despite your experiences. They don't match mine. [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5484118/google-ai-overview-online-publishers https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5484118/google-ai-overv... [2] https://digiday.com/media/the-winners-and-losers-of-googles-ai-mode/ https://digiday.com/media/the-winners-and-losers-of-googles-... [3] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overviews-hit-by-eu-antitrust-complaint-independent-publishers-2025-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overview... [4] https://www.reuters.com/legal/googles-ai-previews-erode-internet-edtech-company-says-lawsuit-2025-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/googles-ai-previews-erode-inte...
fennecfoxy 1y ago
Also have the same experience with regular Google search now (and other engines, too). I think part of the problem is the degradation of Google's product, but also the endless amount of absolute shit that humanity is vomiting onto the Internet now. The commercialisation of (almost) the entire Internet during the mid 2000s has wrecked it all. Now AI searches that: search, pull various pages to examine real contents, continue searching etc, then summarise/answer is realistically the only way to filter through all of said bullshit. AI searches help with the clickbait problem as well, since even "reputable" news outlets are engaging in that fuckery now. It's either; we use AI to sift through the dead carcass of our old friend, or we enforce rules for a clean Internet - which I can definitely not see happening.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
Alternatively Wikipedia as search engine, no Javascript, no "AI" Query string "wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is the #1 result usage: sh 1.sh wrench tight spaces > 1.htm;firefox ./1.htm #!/bin/sh ns=$( for x in \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 \ 100 101 \ 118 119 \ 710 711 \ 828 829 \ 2300 2301 2302 2303 do printf \&ns$x=1 done ) export x=https://en.wikipedia.org echo "url=$x/w/index.php?search=$@$ns&fulltext=1&offset=0" \ |(echo user-agent=\"\" ; echo header Accept:; tr \\40 +) \ |curl -K/dev/stdin \ |(echo "<base href=$x />";cat)
- armchairhacker 1y ago
  That only works for some queries, particularly simple ones. Even elaborating the given query into “type of wrench for tight spaces” puts “basin wrench” in 6th place below incorrect wrenches like “oil filter” and “hydraulic torque” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=type+of+wrench+for+tight+spaces&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=type+of+wrench...).
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
    That's not the same search URL used in the comment The "ns" parameters are significant If use the URL in the comment with this query string then Basin_wrench is #3 result Monkey_wrench is #1 and Wrench is #2
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  "type of wrench for tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #3 result Delete preposition: "of" "type wrench for tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #2 result Delete preposition: "for" "type of wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #2 result Delete prepositions: "of", "for" "type wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #2 result Delete unnecessary noun "type" and preposition "of" "wrench for tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #1 result Delete preposition "for" "wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #1 result "tight spaces wrench" Basin_wrench is #1 result "tight wrench spaces" Basin_wrench is #1 result Much less typing, no unnecessary nouns and prepositions I like it, others might not I also tried a number of less popular search engines with a non-AI search from the command line Query string "type of wrench for tight spaces" For several of them the #1 result was for star-plumbing.com https://star-plumbing.com/what-kind-of-wrench-is-used-in-tight-spaces/ https://star-plumbing.com/what-kind-of-wrench-is-used-in-tig...
neuralRiot 1y ago
I don’t know if old school search engines are too ingrained in me but my search would look something like: reduced space “wrench” -site:www.amazon.com -site:ww.ebay.com

by extr 1y ago

thewebguyd 1y ago

> The only people "losing out" here are people running SEO-spammish websites that themselves (at this point) are basically hosting webpages containing LLM-generated answers for me to find. Agreed. The web will be better off for everyone if these sites die out. Google is what brought these into existence in the first place, so I find it funny Google is now going to be one of the ones helping to kill them. Almost like they accidentally realized SEO got out of control so they have to fix their mistake.

extr 1y ago
At one point these SEO pages were in fact providing a real service, and you could view them as a sort of "manual", prototypical, distributed form of AI. Millions of people trying to understand what information was valuable and host webpages to satisfy the demand for that info, and get rewarded for doing so. It obviously went too far, but at one point, it did make sense to allow these websites to proliferate. I know without AI, I probably just would have clicked on the first link that said "types of wrenches" and read a little bit. I probably would have gotten my answer, it just wouldn't have been quite as laser-targeted to my exact question.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  True, the early days these sites were genuinely helpful. The monetization model was a little different though which is what I think kept them useful. You'd use the content just to drive traffic, which would result in ad clicks on your banner ads, etc. Then "content marketing" took over, and the content itself was now also used to sell a product or service, sort of an early form of influencer marketing and that is when I think it all started to go down hill. We stopped seeing the more in depth content which actually taught something, and more surface level keywords that were just used to drive you to their product/service. OTOH, the early web was also full of niche forums, most viewable without an account and indexable, of about any topic you could imagine where you could interact with knowledgeable folks in that niche. Google would have been more helpful to users by surfacing more of those forums vs. the blogs. Those forums are IMO the real loss here. Communities have moved into discord, or another closed platform that doesn't appear on the web, and many that require accounts or even invitations to just view read only.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
"Live by the SEORD, die by the SEORD" Or was it, "Live by the AdWord..."

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nicbou 1y ago

Hard disagree. I put a great deal of work into my website, putting hard-earned information on the internet for the first time. Now Google reaps all the value I create without as much as a "thank you".

awongh 1y ago
Unfortunately the new victims in the system of LLMs and the way they distribute knowledge is the specialized content website. Now an LLM just knows all the content you painstakingly gathered on your site. (It could also be, and is likely that it was also collected from other hard to find sites across the internet). The original web killed off the value of a certain kind of knowledge (encyclopedias, etc.) and LLMs will do the same. There are plenty of places to place the blame, but this is a function of any LLM, and a funcamental way LLMs work, not just a problem created and profited from by Google- for example the open-weight models, where no-one is actually profiting directly.
- jjani 1y ago
  > There are plenty of places to place the blame, but this is a function of any LLM, and a funcamental way LLMs work, not just a problem created and profited from by Google- for example the open-weight models, where no-one is actually profiting directly. First time learning that scraping and training on data that they have often been explicitly disallowed to obtain for free or for that purpose by the rights holders is "fundamental to how LLMs work". If not, then there is no reason those who gathered the information wouldn't stand to profit by selling LLMs this data.
- nothercastle 1y ago
  We killed forums and now were killing specialty websites. Soon we will get right back to pre internet levels of knowledge. Ai will be able to find all the stuff that was easily available in encyclopedias and text books and none of the stuff that made 90s-2000 internet great.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago

what 1y ago

The LLM probably wouldn’t know the answer to your initial question without the SEO spam sites that they were trained on.

troyvit 1y ago

> The only people "losing out" here are people running SEO-spammish websites that themselves (at this point) are basically hosting LLM-generated answers for me to find. And anybody who creates original content and wishes -- not just to be paid for that content -- but for people to actually see that content and engage with it. IOW the very people who fed the LLM revolution.

therealpygon 1y ago
No one is using AI search to read Tammy’s original content unless it is terribly written, and no one is reading the 4 page fluff peice about the process of troubleshoot XY just to find the command that fixes their problem when they just want to solve the problem. People who want to engage with original content will; people just won’t be forced into appearing they are engaging with content just to find answers to simple questions or find the specific information they are looking for before they leave the site…like always. The result is likely to be more time on site with lower numbers of users; a more genuine reflection of an actual user base instead of search-fed propping of ad revenue numbers through effectively fake impressions. To that point: There is not a single website or blog, ever, that I started visiting regularly by having ended up there from a search result. Literally, ever. From something a friend shared? Something I saw on HN? Something I found through a recommendation, an article that was posted on a different site, etc? Absolutely.
- troyvit 1y ago
  That's ... not what original content makers who aren't named Tammy are saying, including CNN and The Verge [1], the Daily Mail [2], and several lawsuits [3] [4]. In fact, the only people who seem to believe that AI search isn't negatively affecting content makers long-term is google and you, and google (for now) has a vested interest in believing that. Discovery isn't search, but search can be a form of discovery, despite your experiences. They don't match mine. [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5484118/google-ai-overview-online-publishers https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5484118/google-ai-overv... [2] https://digiday.com/media/the-winners-and-losers-of-googles-ai-mode/ https://digiday.com/media/the-winners-and-losers-of-googles-... [3] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overviews-hit-by-eu-antitrust-complaint-independent-publishers-2025-07-04/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overview... [4] https://www.reuters.com/legal/googles-ai-previews-erode-internet-edtech-company-says-lawsuit-2025-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/googles-ai-previews-erode-inte...

fennecfoxy 1y ago

Also have the same experience with regular Google search now (and other engines, too). I think part of the problem is the degradation of Google's product, but also the endless amount of absolute shit that humanity is vomiting onto the Internet now. The commercialisation of (almost) the entire Internet during the mid 2000s has wrecked it all. Now AI searches that: search, pull various pages to examine real contents, continue searching etc, then summarise/answer is realistically the only way to filter through all of said bullshit. AI searches help with the clickbait problem as well, since even "reputable" news outlets are engaging in that fuckery now. It's either; we use AI to sift through the dead carcass of our old friend, or we enforce rules for a clean Internet - which I can definitely not see happening.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

Alternatively Wikipedia as search engine, no Javascript, no "AI" Query string "wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is the #1 result usage: sh 1.sh wrench tight spaces > 1.htm;firefox ./1.htm #!/bin/sh ns=$( for x in \ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 \ 100 101 \ 118 119 \ 710 711 \ 828 829 \ 2300 2301 2302 2303 do printf \&ns$x=1 done ) export x=https://en.wikipedia.org echo "url=$x/w/index.php?search=$@$ns&fulltext=1&offset=0" \ |(echo user-agent=\"\" ; echo header Accept:; tr \\40 +) \ |curl -K/dev/stdin \ |(echo "<base href=$x />";cat)

armchairhacker 1y ago
That only works for some queries, particularly simple ones. Even elaborating the given query into “type of wrench for tight spaces” puts “basin wrench” in 6th place below incorrect wrenches like “oil filter” and “hydraulic torque” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=type+of+wrench+for+tight+spaces&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=type+of+wrench...).
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
  That's not the same search URL used in the comment The "ns" parameters are significant If use the URL in the comment with this query string then Basin_wrench is #3 result Monkey_wrench is #1 and Wrench is #2
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"type of wrench for tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #3 result Delete preposition: "of" "type wrench for tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #2 result Delete preposition: "for" "type of wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #2 result Delete prepositions: "of", "for" "type wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #2 result Delete unnecessary noun "type" and preposition "of" "wrench for tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #1 result Delete preposition "for" "wrench tight spaces" Basin_wrench is #1 result "tight spaces wrench" Basin_wrench is #1 result "tight wrench spaces" Basin_wrench is #1 result Much less typing, no unnecessary nouns and prepositions I like it, others might not I also tried a number of less popular search engines with a non-AI search from the command line Query string "type of wrench for tight spaces" For several of them the #1 result was for star-plumbing.com https://star-plumbing.com/what-kind-of-wrench-is-used-in-tight-spaces/ https://star-plumbing.com/what-kind-of-wrench-is-used-in-tig...

neuralRiot 1y ago

I don’t know if old school search engines are too ingrained in me but my search would look something like: reduced space “wrench” -site:www.amazon.com -site:ww.ebay.com