this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58458 readers
4421 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For now.

DDG gets search results from Bing, owned by Microsoft. And I wouldn't be surprised if the later did the same as Google did.

[–] QBertReynolds@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That's technically true, but it's as misleading as saying they get their search results from Yandex. Their results are aggregated from several search engines, not just Bing. They also have their own web crawler, DuckDuckBot, which absolutely respects RobotRules.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago

Fair point.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 1 month ago

DuckDuckGo is just Bing. Which is uh.. going from Google to Microsoft. Maybe not much better either

[–] parpol@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)
  1. Say no
  2. You don't show up in Google search results
  3. You still show up in other search results
  4. Google is no longer bringing the best results
  5. People stop using Google
  6. Everybody wins
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Google results are actually already pretty terrible. They just have tremendous inertia.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I stopped using them months ago. I only notice when I'm looking for places (e.g., restaurants, barbers).

I'm not unhappy but may still shop around.

[–] pixel@pawb.social 0 points 1 month ago

yeah, I appreciate the push towards more privacy-centric search engines but as a result searches that are relevant to me geographically on places like startpage are next to useless. I understand why but I wish that local results were a bit better on the alternatives.

[–] doctortran@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We all keep saying this but can anybody point me to which one is better?

I invariably end up having to go back to them because the other search engines all have their own problems.

The issue is the internet is polluted with SEO and all the useful things that used to be spread out are now condensed onto places like Reddit, or places that aren't even being indexed.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Supposedly there's a paid one that is good. I haven't tried. The thing is Google is completely enshittified. They don't have to care about you or the sites you search. So my theory is Bing is better because they are hungrier and anything that takes away market share from Google is good—but I'm fully aware that Microsoft was just as shitty as Google and will be again if they get back on top.

Everything else I know of is either just an alternate front end for one of them or an aggregator of both. So you're right, there's precious little alternative to Google. But it's almost bad enough I'm ready for the return of web rings of good sites vouching for each other.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

my theory is Bing is better because they are hungrier and anything that takes away market share from Google is good

If you think Microsoft is in the business of innovation and healthy competition, you're wrong.

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/bing-copies-google

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Sparky@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I assume you're talking about kagi. I pay for their $5/month subscription and it's great

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Part 5 is where I don't see this actually going.

Look at twitter. Now look at mastodon. Tell me which one is more shitty. Now tell me which one has something like 85% of the market, and which one most people haven't heard of.

Just because something it better, doesn't mean people use it. You can fit all of Lemmy in the world in one of the larger NBA size arenas. You can't even fit twitters total user base into some smaller CITIES.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Twitter will be dead within 1-2 years, Elon will make sure of that

[–] hobovision@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

He's already owned it for nearly two years. I'd definitely take the over on that bet. I just don't see what Twitter could possibly do that they haven't done already to kill it?

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

God I hope you're right, but doubt you are.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zurgo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

I'm pretty pessimistic about this:

  1. Say no
  2. Google still scrapes your site to train their AI
  3. People don't care that its wrong, still use Google instead of other search engines
[–] UprisingVoltage@feddit.it 0 points 1 month ago

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people do not give a single fuck and they will use whatever is preinstalled on their device

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure of the advantages of showing up in Google search results. It seems like something that I wouldn't want to happen anyway.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lol... Peasants will accept it...

Sundar the creep knows it.

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

As I understand it, this is only about using search results for summaries. If it's just that and links to the source, I think it's OK. What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation (=write me a story about topic XY).

[–] melroy@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I'm afraid. It's just a matter of time with Google.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

that latter will be the case rather sooner than later I’m afraid. It’s just a matter of time with Google.

If that will actually be the case and passes legal challenges, basically all copyright can be abolished which would definitively have some upsides but also downsides. All those video game ROM decompilation projects would be suddenly in the clear, as those are new source code computer-generated from copyrighted binary code, so not really different from a AI generated image based on a copyrighted image used as training data. We could also ask Gemini write a full-length retelling of Harry Potter and just search, replace all trademarked names, and sell that shit. Evil companies could train an AI on GNU/Linux source codes and tell it to write an operating system. Clearly derived work from GPL code but without any copyright to speak of, all that generated code could be legally closed. I don't like that.

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If it's just that and links to the source, I think it's OK.

No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

What would be absolutely unacceptable is to use the web in general as training data for text and image generation.

This has already happened and continues to happen.

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No one will click on the source, which means the only visitor to your site is Googlebot.

That was the argument with the text snippets from news sources. Publishers successfully lobbied for laws to be passed in many countries that required search engine operators to pay fees. It backfired when Google removed the snippets from news sources that demanded fees from Google. Their visitors dropped by a massive amount, 90% or so, because those results were less attractive to Google users to click on than the nicer results with a snippet and a thumbnail. So "No one will click on the source" has already been disproven 10 or so years ago when the snippet issue was current. All those publishers have entered a free of charge licensing agreement with Google and the laws are still in place. So Google is fine, upstart search engines are not because those cannot pressure the publishers into free deals.

This has already happened and continues to happen.

With Gemini?

[–] rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 1 month ago

Look at you, changing my mind with your logicking ways. I think information should be free anyway, but I thought media companies were being at least remotely genuine about the impact here. Forgot that lobbyists be lobbying and that Google wouldn't have let them win if it didn't benefit them.

[–] elrik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The context is not the same. A snippet is incomplete and often lacking important details. It's minimally tailored to your query unlike a response generated by an LLM. The obvious extension to this is conversational search, where clarification and additional detail still doesn't require you to click on any sources; you simply ask follow up questions.

With Gemini?

Yes. How do you think the Gemini model understands language in the first place?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] einlander@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If I say no and revoke my consent, and they do it anyway ...

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can you afford enough lawyers to prove it?

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Justice is the original pay to win game. Seems its out of our budget though.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bing to finally overtake Google? Inconceivable!

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 0 points 1 month ago

Don't forget Bing's Copilot. IIRC, Bing also brings an AI-generated "summary" whenever you use Bing search.

[–] TrumpetX@programming.dev 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

I've been really happy with Kagi since switching.

[–] WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Same! I swore I wouldn’t pay for a search engine, but I feel like it’s absolutely worth it, considering the current state of things.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

It's definitely better...but. Thanks to Google SEO the internet it's bringing you results from is still filled with shit

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

Oh look, more anticompetitive shenanigans.

Break Google up. Bring the full force of antitrust down on them.

Anything else is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Google is genuinely bad now. I switched to Ecosia which is just Bing with a simpler front end and they use their profits to plant trees. I don't think Ecosia is particularly special though. Duck Duck Go, Bing whatever, they're all better than Google.

Whenever I set up a new computer then search for something, I'm always surprised at first seeing the awful layout and quality of the search results before I realize that I haven't changed the default search from Google. It's awful now. Seriously, how are people using it?

My new favorite way to search is perplexity.ai. It's an AI search tool that summarizes the loads of crap out there so you don't need to read through the junk that people write. It provides sources, unlike using ChatGPT, which is incredibly valuable. All AIs make shit up, so having links to double check it is a must. Unlike Bing Chat, or whatever Microsoft calls it this week, you can ask follow up questions to home in on what you want.

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We're at a point where not only should the Internet be classified as a utility, so should Search.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, it's not just e.g. water that is the utility, pipes and pumping stations are part of it. Otherwise you have water...uh...somewhere, go get it yourself.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

This makes me mad…

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Google: "Making AI helpful for everyone..." (..mostly us!)

[–] Snowcano@startrek.website 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So how do I actually opt out? My website is just some personal hobby stuff on wordpress that only friends and family look at, I don’t need seo.

[–] ColinHayhurst@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

Put should put these entries into your robots.txt file.

To block the Google search crawler use for all of your site:

User-agent: Googlebot

Disallow: /

To block the Google AI crawler use:

User-agent: Google-Advanced

Disallow: /

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We do really need to figure how to make some kind of decentralized search engine.

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I hope it happens one day, but that's an almost insurmountable task given the scale.

Take the entirety of the fediverse, and it's entire history, and you're probably talking a days worth of search engine indexing compute & storage.

The scale is large and the fediverse is incredibly small. Keeping my fingers crossed, but definitely not holding my breath.

In the meantime, I'll use Kagi.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Been on ddg for a few months now. Doesnt look like i need to go back either

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›