top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 188 points 9 months ago (13 children)

Yeah. I'm actually kind of upset that I have to type 'noai'. That should be the standard.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    You can turn all the AI features off on regular DDG search settings. Best I can tell that achuevescthe same as using the no AI filter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I’m looking forward to adding it to my browser settings as default search!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Already doable in Firefox, just right click in the search box then add search engine ;)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Just edit the ddg entry instead of adding a new one. It’s super easy to change the url for the search in settings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    I like kagi's approach of generating an AI overview if you end your query with a question mark. Is this a search or a question?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not a fan of Kagi's approach to anything, frankly. The fact that they're charging money for a search engine, and using an LLM? Hard pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    How dare they charge money instead of selling data or ads!?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I don't have a problem with them selling ads. I have a problem with the insidious tracking that has become a part of those ads. Mojeek sells ads but doesn't track you everywhere. Also, there's SearX instances, which typically don't sell ads or data.

    They also don't use LLMs. If you think Kagi isn't giving away or selling your data, think again, because the LLM is doing it as a core function.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 73 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    So you make noai the default, yes?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    And yet it's opt out, not opt in.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 223 points 9 months ago (25 children)

    At least they have an AI-free option, as annoying as it is to have to opt into it.

    On a related note, it's hilarious to me that the Ecosia search engine has AI built in. Like, I don't think planting any number of trees is going to offset the damage AI has done and will do to the planet.

    🤣 2
  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    lol what? Do they have some kind of statement addressing that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Yes they addressed it here. its kind of understandable given that they want to exist and everyone else has AI... But companies... At least you can turn it off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I want to know what economic forces are making it so that having AI, which costs money and very few users actually want, such a forgone conclusion. Who is paying them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    someone tell them AI isnt good for the environment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Ecosia produces its own green solar energy. According to them, they produce twice as much as they consume. The AI is still shit, because it is just ChatGPT.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Reducing the albedo of some area just to disperse the captured energy for no utility (ai) is still harmful to the environment and contributes to earth's energy imbalance. Solar energy is great when it replaces fossil fuel emissions, not when it's just wasted.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    I don't get this argument when literally everything else is hundreds of times worse like lifestock and cars. Removing either one today would dramatically change the environment.

    Do you drive a car or take any kind of transportation?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Well, I don't know about that.

    My swiss hoster just started offering AI and says that their AI infrastructure is 100 % powered by renewables and the waste heat is used for district heating.

    You could argue that LLM training in itself used so much energy that you'll never be able to compensate for the damage, but I don't know. 🤷

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    While good, you should always keep in mind that using renewables for this means that power can't be used for other purposes, meaning the difference has to be covered by other sources of energy. Always bear in mind that these things don't exist in a vaccum. The resources they use always mean resources aren't used elsewhere. At worst this would mean that new clean power is built to power a waste, and then old dirty power has to be used for everything else, instead of being replaced by clean energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago

    On the other hand...the same private entity wouldn't buy the means to produce renewable power if they didn't want to power their AI center. So in the ends, nothing changes, and the power couldn't be used for other purposes because it simply wouldn't be generated.

    However, as they did and are using it to promote themselves, they are influencing others to also adopt renewable energy policy in a way, no matter how small.

    No, normally I am not that optimistic, but I am trying ^^"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    It fits their business structure and values and of course there's a good portion good faith on my end because I didn't check first hand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I made https://lite.duckduckgo.com/ my homepage. No AI and super fast loading. AI would be fine if it was opt-in. Shoving it into everything to see what works just makes people hate it. Looking at you MS.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    whoa nice! Thanks!

    For people trying to configure that in mozilla (I am trying to get away from it but for now :/)

    • -> Edit -> Settings -> Search
    • "Search Shortcuts" -> Add (to add a search engine)
    • "Search Engine Name": DuckDuckGo Lite
    • "URL with %s in place of search term": https://lite.duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=%25s (this has to be =%s, lemmy keeps mutilating that to =%25s everytime I save my post)
    • "Keyword (optional)": @ddgl (or pick whatever you like - it appears @ddg is hardcoded and gets refused)
    • -> Save Engine
    • scroll up to the top, "Default Search Engine"
    • from the dropdown list, select "DuckGuckGo Lite"

    Done.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 9 months ago

    THE AI by default marketing is failing? Shocker

  • source
  • [–] 99 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    The article already notes that

    privacy-focused users who don’t want “AI” in their search are more likely to use DuckDuckGo

    But the opposite is also true. Maybe it’s not 90% to 10% elsewhere, but I’d expect the same general imbalance because some people who would answer yes to ai in a survey on a search web site don’t go to search web sites in the first place. They go to ChatGPT or whatever.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Yeah, this is why polling is hard.

    Online polls are much more likely to be answered by people who like to answer polls than people who don't. People who use Duck Duck Go are much more likely to be privacy-focused, knowledgeable enough to use a different search engine other than the default, etc.

    This is also an echo chamber (The Fediverse) discussing the results of a poll on another similar echo chamber (Duck Duck Go). You won't find nearly as many people on Lemmy or Mastodon who love AI as you will in most of the world. Still, I do get the impression that it's a lot less popular than the AI companies want us to think.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago

    And how much of their budget are they blowing on AI features despite polls showing their regular users don't even want it? Probably also 90%.

  • source
  • [–] 72 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Meanwhile, at HQ: "The userbase hallucinated that they don't want AI. Maybe we prompted them wrong?"

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The prompt was bad: there was no option to vote for "a little bit of AI as a tool is not bad but don't force feed it to me".

    I think there were many people who voted for "no AI" who would've voted for "a little bit of ai" if they had the option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago

    NOW the question is, will they listen? Cause we've seen so many times where a company says they're taking feedback and then do the thing that their audience didn't want them to do in the first place anyways. Now, of course, they could have more data and metrics that says people don't care or do want the BS, but I doubt all the companies that DID go hard into AI actually looked at legit numbers, since all the big heads are now saying "why aren't you people using this stuff?"

  • source
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    It's so funny to see this pushed out as a marketing campaign for DuckDuckGo AI and it totally flopped.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago

    If they take the poll to heart it can still be a sucess. They can advertise that they listened to their users and changed course.

    That's the thing about really good marketing - it should not only drive users to use your service, but the reactions to that marketing can be used as market research to improve your product and future marketing in a manner that drives even more users to your product.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    I am fairly sure this is the actual point of the campaign. The selection bias for a ‘poll’ like this (one that instantly on-boards you to the ai-disabled version of your product if you click answer negative, no less) is so great that I don’t believe the suits/analysts at ddg ever envisioned a different result. Polls and comment sections lure the extreme viewpoints and the ddg crowd already skews privacy-conscious so this was a highly expected outcome.

    What the campaign does instead is:

    1. Show that you ‘care’ and ‘listen to feedback’ (by a response to the poll somewhere between disabling the ai by default to making the no-ai button a little bit bigger)
    2. show that you have the ability to turn off ai on your product in the first place to those who care
    3. like I said above, directly onboard people onto their preferred search strategy so that when relatives/friends send this around people get a little taste, and realize this exists

    It’s quite clever imo, and there’s no real bad outcome for what I assume is a pretty inexpensive campaign.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Couple months ago, I learned that duckduckgo has settings about disabling AI content. Settings>AI features.
    Easy as that.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    On duckduckgo.com it's unfortunately enabled by default though. You have to go out of your way to set your search browser to noai.duckduckgo.com if you want default AI disabled (which you'll want on e.g. private browsing windows/any browser that autodeletes cookies when you close it). It's extra hassle because most privacy web browsers use DDG by default, not the noai subdomain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    Companies that can not be trusted to not add features their customers do not want can not be trusted to keep them disabled by default.

    If the door to AI exists, we, the users, do not trust the organization to keep it locked.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago

    omfg you don't say

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    Google became crap ever since they added AI. Microsoft became crap ever since they added AI. OpenAI started losing money the moment they started working on AI. Coincidence? I think not!

    Rational people don't want Abominable Intelligence anywhere near them.

    Personally, I don't mind the AI overviews, but they shouldn't show up every time you do a search. That's just a waste of energy.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Google became crap about 10 years ago when they added the product banner in the top, and had the first 5-10 search results be promoted ads. Long before they ever considered adding AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I guess. And then they removed the "Don't be evil" motto just to drive the point home.

    But you have to agree, the company DID become even worse once they started using AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Oh absolutely. It's just important to remember that they've been horrible for a long time, and has shown more ads in a single search than your average 30 minute youtube video.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Google became crap shortly after their company name became a synonym for online searches. When you don't have competitors, you don't have to work as hard to provide search results -- especially if you're actively paying Apple not to come up with their own search engine, Firefox to maintain Google as their default search engine, etc. IMO AI has been the shiny new thing they're interested in as they continue to neglect search quality, but it wasn't responsible for the decline of search quality.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Google and Microsoft were crap before AI, I don't remember when google removed the "don't be evil" but at that point they have been crap for a few years already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I don’t mind the AI overviews, but they shouldn’t show up every time you do a search.

    I have a uBlock filter for those

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    I mind them. Nobody at my workplace scrolls beyond the AI overview and every single one of the overviews they quote to me about technical issues are wrong, 100%. Not even an occasional "lucky guess".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    You can choose how often you want the AI Overwiew to appear! It like asks you the first time you get one in a small pop up. I still think they should instead work on "highlighting relevant text from a website" like how google used to do. It was so much better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I did not know that. Never noticed a pop up. And does this work with both search engines? You can turn off the AI features on DuckDuckGo with like two clicks, but I can't seem to find the option on Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    That's when the Silicon Valley types all bring out the ol' "People don't know what they want until you show it to them." Well, they already showed what LLM can do and it's not that great.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Is there a way to get Firefox/Librewolf to have noai.duckduckgo.com set as the default search engine in settings? I can't find a way to set a custom link for something like that.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    In your settings, first deselect Google as default so you can delete it.

    Then go follow this guide

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    64 comments in c/goodnewseveryone@piefed.social view that post
    8 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post