Why are search engines so bad?

[Rhienfo]

I swear that search engines are weren't as bad as they are now. It's actually really annoying that I have to search reddit after anything that I search to actually get useful information. Not to mention how bad google in terms of data collection and just not being a good browser, but even using firefox I still feel like search engines are really bad (I understand that's probably unrelated though)

Anyone have any suggestions/recommendations on a good search engine that isn't straight garbage?

[Leslieann]

DuckDuckGo (DDG)
It mixes Bing and Google for a more "sane" result and anonymizes the data so Google can't effectively track. Note that MS still can. Can't win them all.

As for why google is so bad, many in I.T. have also taken notice*. It's a combination of people gaming the system, Google manipulating results, trying to shove ads everywhere and simply trying to make it do too much. The only time I use it now is if DDG fails on something sup[er technical, in which case google can sometimes come to the rescue.

Give it 5, maybe 10 more years, Google will be the next Yahoo, which is what they're scared of and everything they're doing is just exacerbating that problem (actually Yahoo is is still huge).

This is why they're all in on A.I.
Microsoft is currently in the lead and could use Chat GPT to put the screws to Google/Android and Apple to gain a foothold in the cellular market which they've long dreamed of. Why sell phones when you can just be the search engine powering them. Google in particular must at the very least, catch up no matter the cost or lose everything.


 *All of Google has gone pretty downhill really. What's new or more importantly, what's new that won't be cancelled in 3 months? They've become so large they want everything to be an instant massive profit maker so building anything ground up is no longer possible for them. This is probably why so many large companies just buy up smaller ones, it's a way to fast track development. Investors want quarterly profits, not R&D for something 4 years down the line.

[Findecanor]

Does DuckDuckGo actually use Google, and not just Bing?
These past few weeks, numerous times I've searched for something on DuckDuckGo and given up, only to go to
Google and find it there.

AI can **** off. I want my search results less fuzzy, not more.

[tp4tissue]

It's so heavily polarized for advertisers / sellers now.

It's not for finding information anymore, it's almost entirely for finding businesses who sell something related to what you're looking for.

That's certainly true for the first several pages.

[Darthbaggins]

Also you need to put in strict search parameters, so it can find answers within the cone of what you are looking for.   Really depends on what you are searching for, but DDG is a good route to start on.

[Leslieann]

Also you need to put in strict search parameters, so it can find answers within the cone of what you are looking for.

Oh! This brings up a good point as well, totally forgot.

One reason Google has gotten worse is because of this very thing, they're trying to optimize it for common speech patters.  Such as you used to say "specific thing" now they expect something more like "how did specific thing happen". Instead of people adapting they're trying to adapt the engine. This made no sense when they started unless you realize they were getting ready for speech based search. You probably need to play with it more than in the past to find what you're after.

And the worst part, and should have mentioned this...
Not even Google knows entirely how the system works, they make changes and hope for the best. If your listing gets stuck in Google Hell (forced to bottom of the list for manipulation) it can takes weeks and months for Google engineers to help you dig your way out. It happened to Nissan.

[Leslieann]

Does DuckDuckGo actually use Google, and not just Bing?
These past few weeks, numerous times I've searched for something on DuckDuckGo and given up, only to go to
Google and find it there.

DDG can take some getting used to but once you do it seems to work a bit better, most of the time.

An alternative you may want to try is searx,info, it's an anonymized Google.

One problem you may be having is people forget that Google manipulates the response based on previous searches you've made, links clicked, and prior visits to those sites. What you get when you search is not always the exact same as what I get for the exact same search query. When the info is anonymized, it draws from a wider base, giving you less tuned results. SearX being only Google would probably make a better stepping stone than straight to DDG as it only uses Google results rather than a mix of Bing and Google, smaller pool of sites and users to mix the results from.

And yes this means the more anonymized, the more fuzzy your result is always going to be. That also may be why I had an easier time switching, I have so much Google/Facebook/tracking in general disabled and blacked at the DNS all the way down to Google's level that my results were rarely tailored to me anyhow.

Want "better" results, allow more tracking.
Personally, I'll take the worse results than give these people anything.

[Rhienfo]

Does DuckDuckGo actually use Google, and not just Bing?
These past few weeks, numerous times I've searched for something on DuckDuckGo and given up, only to go to
Google and find it there.

DDG can take some getting used to but once you do it seems to work a bit better, most of the time.

An alternative you may want to try is searx,info, it's an anonymized Google.

One problem you may be having is people forget that Google manipulates the response based on previous searches you've made, links clicked, and prior visits to those sites. What you get when you search is not always the exact same as what I get for the exact same search query. When the info is anonymized, it draws from a wider base, giving you less tuned results. SearX being only Google would probably make a better stepping stone than straight to DDG as it only uses Google results rather than a mix of Bing and Google, smaller pool of sites and users to mix the results from.

And yes this means the more anonymized, the more fuzzy your result is always going to be. That also may be why I had an easier time switching, I have so much Google/Facebook/tracking in general disabled and blacked at the DNS all the way down to Google's level that my results were rarely tailored to me anyhow.

Want "better" results, allow more tracking.
Personally, I'll take the worse results than give these people anything.

Thanks for this. I will probably use Searx (If I can get it to make it my main browser on firefox lol). I heard duckduckgo was good but I just don't want to give Microsoft my data. I would also rather get worse results than give a huge multi billion dollar corporation anything as well, even thought I would like to have the best of both worlds.

Do you think AI will be the next big leap when it comes to search engines, I'm not too invested in that aspect but I hope it does cause google is really bad. I'm just concerned that big companies like Microsoft will monopolized that aspect of search engine technology, which seems to be a potential future (and also the environmental damage that I've heard AI can bring). Hoping that if the technology is viable, there will be a free, private open source version of it.

[Leslieann]

Thanks for this. I will probably use Searx (If I can get it to make it my main browser on firefox lol). I heard duckduckgo was good but I just don't want to give Microsoft my data. I would also rather get worse results than give a huge multi billion dollar corporation anything as well, even thought I would like to have the best of both worlds.

Do you think AI will be the next big leap when it comes to search engines, I'm not too invested in that aspect but I hope it does cause google is really bad. I'm just concerned that big companies like Microsoft will monopolized that aspect of search engine technology, which seems to be a potential future (and also the environmental damage that I've heard AI can bring). Hoping that if the technology is viable, there will be a free, private open source version of it.

You're welcome.
I agree with you about MS, but it's not like they get a lot from an ad and if you use Windows, they already have your data.

AI will be the next big thing, we know that, but it's not working out even remotely how people expected.
We all thought A.I. would be more factual and it's turning to be more artistic and fuzzy than logical. Want it to calculate something precise or write a legal brief, fail. Want it to write a Seinfeld script or want a picture of your favorite actor riding a space shuttle into space it does amazing. We thought artists were safe, turns out they're the first being replaced by.

Everyone (including MS and Google) expected it to excel in search as it was a natural extension and while I think it will get there for the time being it's a money pit and it won't change any time soon. It's one thing for a search engine to make a mistake and send you to a scam site it's another when it gives you bad medical or legal advice or just straight up lies to you. Not only does it lie but it can even gaslight you. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen and that's why ChatGPT disabled a lot of functions recently. It's like a 5 year old telling you a story and manipulating you into doing it's bidding.


As for monopolizing it for search, it's a lot closer to personal assistants than a product in itself.
No one has been really able to monopolize or even monetize personal assistants, Alexa costs Amazon a TON while Siri and Ok Google helps drive phone sales none of these actually make money for them directly. While I (and MS) could see a world where MS wins out on A.I. search and ends up on every smart phone, I also can't. Everyone and their cousin is racing to catch up and throwing a LOOOOOOT of money at the problem. Also look at history, the first person/company to really make the great leap is usually pushed out pretty fast as they get leapfrogged and/or under estimate what their invention is capable of.

Also, A.I. is broad, no one A.I. is going to do everything, at least not at first.

[tp4tissue]

AI powered combat dr0nez..  Thoughts ?

[fohat.digs]

it's turning to be more artistic and fuzzy than logical.

There is psychological research into "focused" thinking and "unfocused" thinking, sometimes called "logical" and "creative" or something similar.

In order to focus an AI, the instruction set needs to be very specific and unambiguous. Except for mathematics that is almost impossibly difficult to acheive.

That's why when an AI is asked to find an end to the Covid pandemic, the simple and easy solution is to eradicate the human race.

[Leslieann]

AI powered combat dr0nez..  Thoughts ?

Bad, bad idea.
While it can augment a force, it can't replace actual eyes and boots.

More importantly,
Take away the death and destruction and it may as well be Battlebots, people will take sides but there's nothing at risk other than tax dollars. It makes for an endless war machine.
War is supposed to be bad so you try to end it.

[Rhienfo]

We thought artists were safe, turns out they're the first being replaced by.

It's a lawsuit waiting to happen and that's why ChatGPT disabled a lot of functions recently.

I thought that this wouldn't happen, Like I feel that AI may disrupt the art industry in some aspect but I don't think artists will be replaced because AI can't really create its' own thing they have to take (Maybe that's wishful thinking, I do hope to be a creative one day and I hope that creative fields don't get replaced but knowing corporations they will try and do so to increase profits)

Also isn't AI a legal hellhole in general due to it basically stealing copyrighted material?

[tp4tissue]

AI powered combat dr0nez..  Thoughts ?

Bad, bad idea.
While it can augment a force, it can't replace actual eyes and boots.

More importantly,
Take away the death and destruction and it may as well be Battlebots, people will take sides but there's nothing at risk other than tax dollars. It makes for an endless war machine.
War is supposed to be bad so you try to end it.

But Tax dollars are not disconnected from people or the war machine.

Instead of having people shot each other, people build machines that shoot each other, in either case, does it not consume "lives" as the people's labor are converted to battlebots?

It would be similar to the olympics

[Leslieann]

Also isn't AI a legal hellhole in general due to it basically stealing copyrighted material?

Yes it is.

But Tax dollars are not disconnected from people or the war machine.

Are you sure about that... Just look at the budget talks.
We got out of a war and we give the military even more money.

"You're not against the troops are you?!"
No matter how bad our spending, the military budget only goes up.
Yes, it was a Republican talking point to cut military but that's just a negotiating tactic, something they could "give up" when it came time to negotiate.

[iri]

I switched from Google to DDG about 10 years ago because the search accuracy was just terrible. The last straw was Google replacing “fat” with “plus-sized” in “fat bike”.

[Sintpinty]

i mean, it's not like we have the alternative

[Leslieann]

AI powered combat dr0nez..  Thoughts ?

Bad, bad idea.
While it can augment a force, it can't replace actual eyes and boots.

Oh look...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a33gj/ai-controlled-drone-goes-rogue-kills-human-operator-in-usaf-simulated-test (Vice link)
"The Air Force's Chief of AI Test and Operations said "it killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.""

Sounds a bit like Stargate Replicators.


Edit:
The Air Force is denying this happened and was a misunderstanding, they too have the same fears.
However, there has been A.I. bots gone rogue in the past, such as the one that escaped the workshop and was only stopped when the extension cord came unplugged.

[tp4tissue]

This seems inevitable.

Even in video games, we routinely target our own buildings/ troops if the net outcome is positive for the winning condition.

Similarly, a human body goes into fever or autoimmune responses to protect itself from pathogens.

It stands to reason that AI will follow where advanced logic naturally leads.

[fohat.digs]

Oh look ....

TL;DR  "We must face a world where AI is already here and transforming our society,” Hamilton said in an interview with Defence IQ Press in 2022. “AI is also very brittle, i.e., it is easy to trick and/or manipulate. We need to develop ways to make AI more robust and to have more awareness on why the software code is making certain decisions.”

“AI is a tool we must wield to transform our nations…or, if addressed improperly, it will be our downfall," Hamilton added.
Outside of the military, relying on AI for high-stakes purposes has already resulted in severe consequences.

-  -  -  -  -

The human race has a solid history of immediately going to the Dark Side.

At the turn of the century in 1900 there were no powered airplanes or a theory of relativity - and a just few decades later, before mid-century, atomic weapons had been dropped from airplanes by humans against other humans.

The "Strange New Worlds" episode where a planet developed a "warp bomb" before a warp drive was all too believable.

[tp4tissue]

The "Strange New Worlds" episode where a planet developed a "warp bomb" before a warp drive was all too believable

This is why every country should have nv(lear weapons.

Death is the greatest fairest equalizer, equality to the rich poor hungry sick and lame.

We need weapons parity "Because" we're dumb. Parity is the only thing ensuring that no one will actually use the weapon.

We humans are too stupid on our own and will kill ourselves otherwise.

Take solice in the fact that earth-nature will reboot with another species at some point in a few million years when the rad1a7ion decays enough.


There's a small chance, the Alien-Br0s are watching us and will give us a firm nudge, but no guarantees.

[Leslieann]

There's a small chance, the Alien-Br0s are watching us and will give us a firm nudge, but no guarantees.

Or they could just see us as some silly pet project and mark our galaxy for destruction in order to construct a new space super highway.

[tp4tissue]

There's a small chance, the Alien-Br0s are watching us and will give us a firm nudge, but no guarantees.

Or they could just see us as some silly pet project and mark our galaxy for destruction in order to construct a new space super highway.

It's very possible they see us that way.

Overall, the most stark weakness in the current generation of humans is our aloofness and apathy for the environment and OTHER SPECIES. Those other species form critical components of our biosphere which makes life possible on the planet.

Fundamentally, one could argue, that without overcoming such prejudice, we will simply not care enough to be able to advance OUR OWN race much further, we're headed for self-destruction if animal agriculture continues as is.

An advanced alien race, to get to where they are, they would have to discover/ adapt/ evolve radically stronger EMPATHY to form a social-collective Stable enough to become space faring.

Stakes are exponentially higher as more technology unlocks. It's kind of like small CNC machines that are cute, and you can run them into the ground without them tearing themselves apart.  But you get to any professional machines, and that thing WILL kill itself if you get sloppy.

This is why Tp4 believes, if Alien-br0s are watching, it's unlikely they'd be apathetic towards our imminent destruction.

[1391401]

AI will change this - already using chatgpt and phind at work to not only answer questions but produce useful output (like boilerplate code)