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.

People use Google Search five trillion times a year – it defines the shape of the internet. AI Mode is a radical departure. Unlike AI Overviews, AI Mode replaces traditional search results altogether. Instead, a chatbot effectively creates a miniature article to answer your question. As you read this, AI Mode is rolling out to users in the US, appearing as a button on the search engine and the company's app. It's optional for now, but Google's head of Search, Liz Reid, said it plainly when launching the tool: "This is the future of Google Search."

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

With any luck, it will kill google.

I don't see how they can even pretend that it will do anything other than steal website traffic, since the exact point is to provide you with the information you would have gotten if you had gone to the website, leaving no reason to actually go to the website.

So painfully obviously, Google intends to steal the websites' content in order to steal the websites' traffic.

Which would seem to me to be grounds for class action lawsuits on behalf of the entire internet, which, if judged fairly, should bankrupt even that foul beast of a corporation.

And ironically enough, that would almost certainly "rejuvenate the internet." As a matter of fact, I can't think of a single thing that would do more to "rejuvenate the internet" than killing Google.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I agree with the above but would like to add that the results are hilariously bad and error-prone. I got results for a simple query about public holidays that were so wrong it was unusable. Once people get to experience the abysmal AI search regularly, they will just stop using it. Whether Google quietly kills it quick enough before people start using alternatives is the billion dollar question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is there truly an audience for "I don't want any proof, just answer my question"?

    As Elon said, let that sink in. Perhaps an unpopular position, but if that's all users want and it makes them more money, of course that's what Google will do.

    I'm in no way suggesting this is a good direction, but it's unsurprising.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Today a friend told me about how, last night, a Google AI summary led to a huge fight between him and his partner. Turns out the AI summary was 100% wrong. I mean yeah, don't make important decisions based on an AI summary. But a lot of non-tech folks still have no idea how inaccurate those results can be, and even more just plain don't care.

  • source
  • parent
  • Is there truly an audience for "I don't want any proof, just answer my question"?

    More people than I think we'd like to admit. Most people don't spend time verifying whether or not what they've seen is true, they just believe what they see first, especially if it conforms to their existing beliefs.

    After all, these models are quite literally plausibility machines. Their entire goal is to generate text that sounds plausibly accurate, because that's how manual content reviewers fine-tune them. Their sole purpose is to generate whatever sounds plausible, not what's necessarily correct, so if there's one thing that will convince the masses that what it says is correct, it will be these "AI" models.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Can someone please break this company up into pieces?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Why the fuck people still use Google? Seriously? Is it just lazyness and old habit of defaulting to Google or is it just "whatever is the default in browser" which is Google in 99% of times?

    I've been on DuckDuckGo and recently Qwant for at least 8+ years now and I don't miss Google one single bit.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I have used Presearch for years, decentralized search engine, powered by blockchain technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Presearch is not fully decentralized.

    All the services that manage advertising, staking/marketplace/rewards functionality, and unnamed "other critical Presearch services" are all "centrally managed by Presearch" according to their own documentation.

    The nodes that actually help scrape and serve content are also reliant on Presearch's centralized servers. Every search must go through Presearch's "Node Gateway Server," which is centrally managed by them. That removes identifying metadata and IP info.

    That central server then determines where your request goes. It could be going to open nodes run by volunteers, or it could be their own personal nodes. You cannot verify this due to how the structure of the network works.

    Presearch's search index is not decentralized. It's a frontend for other indexes. (e.g. it outsources queries to other search engines, databases, and APIs for services it's configured to use) This means it does not actually have an index that is independent from these central services. I'll give it a pass for this since most search engines are like this today, but many of them are developing their own indexes that are much more robust than what Presearch seems to be doing.

    This node can return results to the gateway. There doesn't seem to be any way that the gateway can verify that what it's being provided is actually what was available on the open web. For example, the node could just send back results with links that are all affiliate links to services it thinks are vaguely relevant to the query, and the gateway would assume that these queries are valid.

    For the gateway to verify these are accurate, it would have to additionally scrape these services itself, which would render the entire purpose of the nodes pointless. The docs claim it can "ensure that each node is only running trusted Presearch software," but it does not control the root of trust, and thus it has the same pitfalls that games have had for years trying to enforce anticheat (that is to say, it's simply impossible to guarantee unless presearch could do all the processing within a TPM module that they entirely control, which they don't. Not to mention that it would cause a number of privacy issues)

    A better model would be one where nodes are solely used for hosting to take the burden off a central server for storing the index, and chunks sent to nodes would be hashed, with the hash stored on the central server. When the central server needs a chunk of data based on a query, it sends a request, verifies the hash matches, then forwards it to the user, thus taking the storage burden off the main server and making the only cost bottleneck the bandwidth, but that's not what Presearch is doing here.

    This doesn't make Presearch bad in itself, but it's most definitely not decentralized. All core search functionality relies on their servers alone, and it simply adds additional risk of bad actors being able to manipulate search results.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah! I used DDG for quite a while and it's pretty okay. Kagi definitely isn't without fault but for me it's the best true alternative to Google and I happily pay for it. Allows me to save so much time (cumulatively) by just guiding me to the actual result in most cases (instead of sponsored and ad-infested garbage sites)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've been using DDG for a bit, and honestly, it's kinda garbage. They are just borrowing data from Bing, and it shows.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Add Stract.com it is a little behind in web crawling of current info, but the results are like how google used to be around 2010. Just relevant content info, no ads (yet) and occasional randomness

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Search engines are already basically worthless, so I'm not surprised with the falling axe.

    The shift from search engines actually indexing things to search through to trying to parse a question and find an answer has been the most irritating trend for me. I remember when you could just put in a series of words and be delivered unto every indexed page that had all of them.

    Now I regularly get told that even common words don't exist if I insist that, no, google I do want only searches with the words I put in.

    This is my old person rant, I guess. /s

    This change is probably going to cause huge problems for a lot of existing sites, especially because it means Google will probably start changing their advertising model now that they can consolidate the views into a specific location and pocket the money. The article mentions this, but doesn't realize the implications.

    "The internet will still be around," is only true if you hold that the super consolidated, commericalized nexus of doom is going to continue on just fine, while countless small, very useful websites made by actual people for actual reasons fade away into oblivion.

    It sucks to watch something I have loved my whole life die, but it's going bit by bit because we can't convince our politicians to do anything about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't this site proof that the internet doesn't have to die as a whole? I mean, I agree with your sentiment, but I feel that this will mostly hit the middle to high traffic sites. The community based ones with organic discovery will remain OK I think. This might even evolve back to an early internet age of smaller hobbyist sites because there no longer is big money in the internet (apart from what google captures as "their" internet)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's possible, but I don't doubt that there's going to be a continued push to consolidate people into smaller and smaller parts of the internet- quite possibly through legal means, but definitely through as many commerical ones as possible.

    I don't have a lot of faith in the perseverance of the vast majority of websites, not because of their lack of willingness or desire, but because of a lack of funds.

    People get poorer, needs get more expensive and things like this place become harder to keep running.

    You are right, though, that it's not written in stone. I will try to hold out a metered measure of hope.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I think Google is doing this specifically because of the anti trust trial against their ad monopoly/monopsony.

    Like they’re clearly loosing the trial and that means they’re probably going to have to sell off parts of their advertising company, or at least massively alter how they operate to end the anti competitive practices.

    It used to be that Google made money on every user, even if they left the site, because they served all the ads on every other site as well. Now that they won’t be making money that way, so they don’t want people going to other sites anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Fuck google and the walled web. Time to help people join the fediverse.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Nothing is "an apocalypse" for anything.

    JFC, people, stop pushing these extreme opinions on AI. It is not simultaneously the solution to everything and the end of the world. It's just a goddamn tool.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I think the argument in this context it’s more about how Google is acting as a company, and less about how the underlying technology is dangerous.

    Like Google clearly intends to turn off the web traffic to anyone who isn’t them. They want to maximize the amount of time users are spending on their page, seeing ads served directly by them. With their ad monopoly liable to get broken up in court, they won’t be able to monopolize advertising on other websites, so they’re just going to prevent people from going to other websites.

    The fall out for smaller websites, news, blogs, ect, will be that suddenly a lot of their traffic is going to disappear because Google is no longer sending people to them, instead Google will scrape their pages and then just give that information directly to users. It will be an apocalypse to those making information to put on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    To be honest, most of the internet is dead anyway.

    The good stuff is here in the Fediverse and there are a few havens out there where people can come together.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    If Google destroys the Internet, the furry community will just have to rise up and make Internet 2: Electric Boogaloo.

  • source
  • 38 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 97 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    the web is already destroyed with all the spam, commercial crap, tracking and spying

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 year ago

    “About to”?

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Google disagrees. In fact, the company tells the BBC that AI Overviews have been good for the web, and AI Mode will be no different. Google insists these features send users to "a greater diversity of websites" and the traffic is "higher quality" because people spend more time on the links they click.

    However, the company hasn't provided data to back up these claims.

    This is how we know they are lying.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not sure about the web but Google can for sure Yahoo themselves out of existence.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I miss Yahoo games.

    Google only has one game, and it's not even multiplayer. :/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Yahoo games and clubs, groups and search, chat and messenger that had filesharing and video and allowed cross fertilisation between everything. It was becoming the internet, it was set to buy Google and then it just stopped and closed it all down.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    We're soon going to end up back in the early/mid 90s where the only way to find something is via a internet yellowpages.. only this time, not because search engines dont exist yet, but because they are completely worthless garbage.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Don't forget to put your website on a webring! https://xn--sr8hvo.ws/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Man I miss the old internet..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Someone posted this the other day: https://goodinternetmagazine.com/building-a-slow-web/

    I really liked the idea so I quickly made my personal site and put it on the indie webring. It's a tiny community but it's there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Google search engine has been shit for a decade or more. Wasn't there some document that it was made so by purpose, because there was no incentive to improve it becuse there was no real competition or the competition was just a front-end to google.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    2018-2019 is when they officially turned the corner and decided to focus only on ad revenue. But the SEO abuse dove it into the ground by 2014ish. They were making money enough to expand by orders of magnitude into other areas, so they simply didn't want to tweak their search or strategy and kill their golden goose that funded things like Good Drive and their shit social network and loon, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-men-who-killed-google/

    I'm not a huge fan of Ed Zitron generally, he leans towards histrionic too much for my tastes, but he makes a compelling case here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    I haven't used Google Search in quite a while. It's frankly unusable for finding any useful information for someone like me.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    I called this one pretty early on. Let's see if it catches on or tanks the Goog.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I recommend Kagi. It is a search engine with absolutely no tracking or ads, AI slop filter, an in-house index and a cute doggo. It's a paid search engine (which means you pay with money not with data), but you can give it a try with 300 free searches with no strings attached.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*
    [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago
    [+] -10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Blaming google is like blaming the gun for killing someone, google gonna do what google gonna do, it's up to the consumer to effect change through attention.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Where do monopolies get their money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    To a degree perhaps. It has also monopolised industries that feed into each other. Even if you choose not to use their consumer products, you are being used by them as the product in these industries if you use the web at all, which is most of their business model. That isn't consumer choice. Political intervention is one hope, which in some countries I guess there is some consumer power over, if consumers were to collectivise to a degree more valuable than the lobbying power of this monster. The internet was turned into the yellowpages with sharp teeth by google .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Oh yes, political intervention, that'll work, no chance of that turning out worse than what we have now.

    How about taking responsibility and just not using services that require it. And I dont care if that's a disadvantage to some, that's the cost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Political intervention is what started Google, so I don't see the problem.

    How about taking responsibility and just not using services that require it.

    Google has shaped the web into what it is over decades so that they could maintain their position of power. This is the very essence and purpose of a monopoly. Yet here you are trying to blame anything but the monopoly for the monopoly's existence.

    Nothing like convincing hundreds of millions of people to abandon a company rather than put any pressure on the small group of greedy people who own it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Listen man, if thats what you think is best, you keep using them and try to effect change, good luck, im just not going to use services like that and have the problem solved for myself. Let me know when you've made something happen and I'll even apologise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The two approaches you mention need not be mutually exclusive. I ditched google services more than 10 years ago, while loving somewhere they did some truly despicable antidemocratic things. but so what? They're a corporation. There are political lobby groups, privacy foundations and advocacy groups you can contribute to. Despite being respectfully evangelical with those around me, most other than a fringe really don't care enough about this. Doesn't mean I’ll stop. I will still suggest alternatives. They're my principles. you're working in their interest if you tell your allies to give up. I understand and share the cynicism around political process especially in democratic nations with disappointing levels of corporate influence over legislation, we can only engage in it best we can, as well as exerting our rights as consumers. The critical mass required may seem insurmountable but negativity toward those effectively on your side is not going to help either.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)