Google turns 25 this year. Can you imagine? It’s only 25 — yet it’s almost impossible to recall life without being able to just Google it, without immediate access to answers. Google Search is everywhere, all the time; the unspoken background of every problem, every debate, every curiosity.

Google Search is so useful and so pervasive that its overwhelming influence on our lives is also strangely invisible: Google’s grand promise was to organize the world’s information, but over the past quarter century, an enormous amount of the world’s information has been organized for Google — to rank in Google results. Almost everything you encounter on the web — every website, every article, every infobox — has been designed in ways that makes them easy for Google to understand. In many cases, the internet has become more parseable by search engines than it is by humans.

We live in an information ecosystem whose design is dominated by the needs of the Google Search machine — a robot whose beneficent gaze can create entire industries just as easily as its cool indifference can destroy them.

This robot has a priesthood and a culture all to itself: an ecosystem of search-engine-optimization experts who await every new proclamation from Google with bated breath and scurry about interpreting those proclamations into rituals and practices as liturgical as any religion. You know why the recipe blogs all have 2,000 words of copy before the real recipe? The Google robot wants it that way. You know why every publisher is putting bios next to author bylines on article pages? The robot wants it that way. All those bold subheadings in the middle of articles asking random questions? That’s how Google answers those questions on the search results page. Google is the most meaningful source of traffic on the web, and so now the web looks more like a structured database for search instead of anything made for real people.

And yet, it keeps working. Google is so dominant that the European Union has spent a decade launching aggressive interventions into the user experience of computers to create competition in search and effectively failed… because our instinct is to always just Google it. People love asking Google questions, and Google loves making money by answering them.

And yet, 25 years on, Google Search faces a series of interlocking AI-related challenges that together represent an existential threat to Google itself.

The first is a problem of Google’s own making: the SEO monster has eaten the user experience of search from the inside out. Searching the web for information is an increasingly user-hostile experience, an arbitrage racket run by search-optimized content sharks running an ever-changing series of monetization hustles with no regard for anything but collecting the most pennies at the biggest scale. AI-powered content farms focused on high-value search terms like heat-seeking missiles are already here; Google is only now catching up, and its response to them will change how it sends traffic around the web in momentous ways.

That leads to the second problem, which is that chat-based search tools like Microsoft’s Bing and Google’s own Bard represent something that feels like the future of search, without any of the corresponding business models or revenue that Google has built up over the past 25 years. If Google Search continues to degrade in quality, people will switch to better options — a switch that venture-backed startups and well-funded competitors like Microsoft are more than happy to subsidize in search of growth, but which directly impacts Google’s bottom line. At the same time, Google’s paying tens of billions annually to device makers like Apple and Samsung to be the default search engine on phones. Those deals are up for renewal, and there will be no pity for Google’s margins in these negotiations.

On top of that, the generative AI boom is built on an expansive interpretation of copyright law, as all of these companies hoover up data from the open web in order to train their models. Google was an original innovator here: as a startup, the company aggressively pushed the boundaries of intellectual property law and told itself and investors that the inevitable legal fees and fines were simply the cost of building Search and YouTube into monopolies. The resulting case law and settlement deals created the legal architecture of the web as we know it — an information ecosystem that allows for things like indexing and the use of image thumbnails without payment.

But the coming wave of AI lawsuits and regulations will be very different. Google won’t be the scrappy upstart pitching an obviously world-altering utility to judges and regulators who’ve never used the internet. It is now one of the richest and most influential corporations in the world, a fat target for creatives, politicians, and cynical rent-seekers alike. It will face a fractured legal landscape, both around the world and increasingly in our own country. All of that early Google-driven internet precedent is up for grabs — and if things go even slightly differently this time around, the web will look very different than it does today.

Oh, and then there’s the hardest challenge of all: Google, famously scattershot in its product launches and quick to abandon things, has to stay focused on a new product and actually develop a meaningful replacement to search without killing it in a year and starting over.

This is not a prediction of imminent doom, or any particular doom at all: Google is a well-run company full of very smart people, and Google and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai is as thoughtful and sharp as any leader in tech. But it is a dead-certain prediction of change — these are the first serious challenges to search in two decades, and the challenges are real. The extent to which Google Search might change as the company reacts to those challenges is enormous, and any change to Google Search will alter our relationship to the internet in momentous ways. And yet, the cultural influence of Google Search is invisible to most people, even as Search arrives at the precipice.

It’s easy to see the effect some tech products have had on our lives — it’s easy to talk about smartphones and streaming services and dating apps. But Google Search is a black hole: one of the most lucrative businesses in world history, but somehow impossible to see clearly. As Google faces its obstacles head-on, the seams holding the invisible architecture of the web together are starting to show. It’s time to talk about what 25 years of Google Search has done to our culture and talk about what might happen next. It’s time to look right at it and say it’s there.

We’re going to be doing that for the rest of the year in a series of stories that starts today with a look at Google’s influence over the media business — influence that led to something called AMP. We’ll also be looking at the world of SEO hustlers as the party comes to a close and take a look at the ecosystem of small businesses content-farming to stay afloat. We’ll show you how Google’s influence shapes the design of almost all the web pages you see, and investigate why it’s so hard to build a competing search engine.

For 25 years, Google Search has held the web together. Let’s make sure we understand what that meant before it all falls apart.

Most Popular

Mon, 08 May 2023 00:14:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.theverge.com/23712602/google-search-25-years-anniversary-ai-artificial-intelligence Search Engine Optimization

If you want your online business to be successful, it's a good idea to optimize your site on a regular basis to make sure it's got a good position in the web's top search engines. And it's important to keep on top of the latest developments in the search engine industry and what key tactics you should--and shouldn't--use to optimize your site to make sure it gets a high ranking with all the major search engines.

For the past few years, the major search engines have been preparing to square off against each other and battle it out for the industry's top spot. Google has been No. 1 for a while now, with Yahoo! and MSN coming in at numbers two and three. Keep in mind, however, that Google and Yahoo! power many of the smaller search engines. For example, Google powers the free listings featured on AOL and Netscape, plus the paid listings featured on AOL, Netscape, Ask Jeeves, HotBot, Teoma and Lycos. Yahoo! powers free listings featured on AltaVista, AllTheWeb and HotBot, plus the paid listings on MSN, AltaVista and AllTheWeb.

Search engines frequently change the algorithms they use to rank sites. They don't want unscrupulous site owners manipulating their indexing methods in order to get high rankings. By doing so, they damage the integrity of free search. As soon as the search engines become aware of a trick being used by "search engine spammers" to boost their site ranking, they figure out a way to catch them.

The search engines don't want to be manipulated by marketers. They want to provide the best unbiased results possible for any given search--or they'll lose users. That's why they need to change their algorithms so frequently-to stay ahead of the tricks people use to get top rankings.

So be careful! You don't want to catch yourself employing a great strategy promoted by a marketing "expert," only to find out it's a tactic the search engines hate! That could get you booted off their listings in no time flat. Let's take a look at what exactly the search engines are looking for when indexing sites--and what they'll punish you for.

The Dos
There are still a lot of legitimate ways you can optimize your site to generate or maintain a high ranking without angering the search engines and causing them to drop you from their list. Here are some of the best things you can to do ensure your site has a high ranking:

1. Ask relevant sites to link to your site. In the past, scoring a high ranking with a search engine was all about positioning your keywords in "prime real estate" positions in your text and site coding. All that has changed, however, because these days, links are king.

Search engines place a huge amount of importance on the number of sites that link to yours. But it's not just the quantity of links that matter, it's also the quality. Search engines look at how relevant the links are, that is, how much the content of the linking site has in common with the content on your site. The more relevant, the better.

Search engines also look at how important the linking site is. What kind of online presence does it have? How much traffic does it get? For example, your site will get a higher ranking if it's linked to by sites such as BBC.com or nationalgeographic.com instead of, say, the personal homepage of your friend's neighbor's kid.

2. Pay attention to keyword inclusion and placement. Keywords may no longer be the sole determining factor of a site's ranking, but they're still pretty important. The most useful places to include them are:

In your domain name--only make sure your keywords are in the root of your URL, not the stem. For example, if your main keyword phrase is "cell phones," try to get a domain name such as "www.cell-phones.com" instead of "www.mobileusa.com/cell-phones." Some search engines will actually penalize sites for including key words in the stem of a URL.
In the title tags in your source code
In the meta description of your site. This is much less important than it used to be, but it can't hurt.
In your meta keyword tags

And be sure you only include relevant keywords. Search engines will penalize you if you try to sneak in keywords that have nothing to do with the content of your site.

3. Create content-rich information pages to direct traffic to your site. An easy way to boost the number of pages that link to your site is to create some pages yourself. However, you have to make sure these pages contain valuable content that provides people with useful information. Search engines hate "pointer pages" that have no content and exist only to add to the number of links pointing to a site.

Be sure the information relates to the content on your site and has your keywords placed in advantageous positions. This will boost the ranking of your pages with the search engines and ensure they get lots of traffic-which they can then redirect to your site.

4. Submit your site to online directories. Be sure to submit your site to important directories such as Yahoo!, the Open Directory Project and About.com, as well as smaller directories. Your listing on these directories will help your ranking with the major search engines.

5. Multiply and conquer. Create a community of related sites that link to each other. Why stop at only one information page? The more content-rich sites that point to your site, the better.

You can also boost the number of links that point to your site by dividing it into several separate sites that all link to each other. This works especially well if you sell a number of different products or services. If you build a different site to focus on each of your products and services, then you can also concentrate the use of specific keyword phrases on each site. That's another great way to boost your search engine ranking.

The Don'ts
Now that we've covered the dos, here come the don'ts. Although these questionable tactics have worked well in the past, the search engines absolutely hate them. If they catch you using any of these tricks, they may go so far as to drop you from their listings.

1. Beware of irrelevant links. Yes, it's a good idea to get a lot of different links pointing to your site, but the search engines only like relevant links. If they find sites that have nothing in common with the content on your site linked to your Web site, they'll lower your relevancy rating.

2. Beware of irrelevant keywords. Search engines hate finding irrelevant keywords on your site-especially in your meta tags. If they catch you using keywords that have nothing to do with the real content of your site, they'll penalize you for it.

3. Don't "keyword stuff" your meta tags. In the past, people used to repeat their keywords in their meta tags over and over again. This used to get them a high ranking with the search engines-but not any more. Search engines are on to this trick and will punish you for it by dropping your ranking.

4. Don't create "link farms." Link farms are the evil cousins of the information pages we discussed above. In the past, some spammers used to build multiple "doorway" sites that existed only to multiply the number of links pointing to their sites. Unlike content-rich information pages, these doorway pages would usually only include a string of keyword terms that would earn them a high ranking with the search engines. The search engines have caught on to this tactic, however, and will drop you from their listings if they find you using it.

5. Avoid "free for all" link pages. Don't bother placing links to your site on pages where everyone and their cousin is invited to put up a link. Such sites have extremely low relevancy ratings and will cost you points with the search engines.

The following resources are good to check out to keep you on top of the changing world of SEO:

Search Engine News. Planet Ocean's online resource, "The Unfair Advantage Book on Winning the Search Engine Wars," is updated monthly and provides excellent optimization tips and information on the search engine industry.

Search Engine Watch. This free site is another rich source of tips and information on the search engine industry. Paid memberships are available for more advanced content.

Search Engine Guide. This free site contains a lot of useful information about the smaller search engines on the Web and who you should submit your site to in order to get a better ranking with the bigger search engines.

Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:15:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/search-engine-optimization Do Not Sell My Information

DO NOT SELL NOTICE FOR CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS

If you are a California resident, you have the right to opt out of the “sale” of your “personal information” under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).

Politico and our advertising partners collected certain pieces of personal information to deliver interest-based advertising. This use of your information may be considered a “sale” under the CCPA. Politico also provides limited personal information to our business partners, who may use it to contact you about various goods and services that may be of interest to you. California consumers who wish to opt out of the sale of their Personal Information may follow the instructions below. More details on the categories of personal information that we “sell”, according to CCPA, can be found in our Privacy Policy.

Opting out of the sharing of your personal information by Politico with marketers: Please send an email to [email protected] with the following information:
· Email address
· First and last name
· State of residence

Opting out of interest-based advertising: Politico uses or participates in each of these services to deliver interest-based advertising. To opt-out, you will need to visit each of the following websites for more information and follow their instructions to use their opt-out tools.
· Network Advertising Initiative: https://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1
· The Digital Advertising Alliance: https://optout.aboutads.info/
· Nielsen: https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/legal/privacy-statement/digital-measurement/#choices
· Google Ad Settings: www.google.com/settings/ads
· Teads: Information on how to opt-out of the sale of personal information can be found in Section 9 of the Teads Privacy Policy (https://www.teads.com/privacy-policy/)

Many of these tools use cookies to store your opt-out preferences on your specific browser and device. You must opt-out on each device and on each browser to exercise your rights. If your browser blocks cookies (or if you choose to delete them from your browser), your opt-out preferences may not be effective. We do not control the opt-out mechanisms listed above and are not responsible for their operation.

Note that we may still deliver advertising to you that is not tailored to you based on your personal information, and that we may still use your personal information for other purposes such as analytics, measurement and attribution. We may also share your personal information with third parties for other purposes in accordance with our Privacy Policy .

If you have any other questions or requests, please email us at [email protected].

Fri, 14 Aug 2020 05:58:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.politico.com/do-not-sell Search engine bias: What search results are telling you (and what they’re not)

A few years ago, a company decided to stop the brick and mortar portion of the business, relying completely on their professionally-revamped, search-engine optimized customer portal. Things were going famously, then new-customer sales began dropping dramatically. Looking for answers, the CEO called the CIO.

After rehashing the latest loss of the Minnesota Vikings football team, the CIO mentioned, “I suppose you’re wondering why Google lowered the customer portal’s PageRank.” The CEO replied, “No, the drop in new sales concerns me.”

“Well,” the CIO continued, “A month ago when I checked search queries, our customer portal came up first. Today, when I looked, the portal was in twentieth spot which means second page, and worse yet, people see links to our competitor’s website before ours.” The CEO, with the tone of if you know what’s good for you asked, “I assume this is being fixed?”

Welcome to search-engine bias

Biased search results affect more than companies that advertise on the Internet. From the example above, one can see that search-engine bias can alter an individual user’s perception of what online information is available, and where that information can be found. Here is an excellent explanation of search-engine bias from Stanford University:

“[T]he phrase “search-engine bias” has been used to describe at least three distinct, albeit sometimes overlapping, concerns:

Search-engine technology is not neutral, but instead has embedded features in its design that favor some values over others.
Major search engines systematically favor some sites (and some kind of sites) over others in the lists of results they return in response to user search queries.
Search algorithms do not use objective criteria in generating their lists of results for search queries.

“While some users may assume search engines are “neutral” or value-free, critics argue that search-engine technology, as well as computer technology in general, are value-laden and thus biased because of the kinds of features typically included in their design.”

It seems devices made by humans can inherit human-like tendencies.

Nature of the beast

The fact that Google has almost 70 percent of the search market in the United States, and more world-wide, puts it smack in the sights of everyone as being the biggest offender when it comes to search-engine bias. To that point, companies and other search providers have successfully lobbied government agencies to look into Google’s search practices (Bloomberg Press).

Not unexpected

The other day I ran across an ACM article, “What to Do About Google?” written by James Grimmelmann, Professor of Law at the University of Maryland. In the article, James pointed out the angst exhibited by companies, individuals, and government agencies is completely expected; as is the fact nothing substantial has been pinned on Google, even with Google Search being investigated since 2011.

James believes that all interested parties have not really decided what search engines are good for, or what should be expected of them, adding::

“Some observers have compared Google to a traditional telecommunications conduit like a radio station. Some have compared it to an editor deciding what stories to put in a magazine. And some have compared it to an advisor, like the concierge in a hotel who answers questions about local attractions.”

Let’s dig a little deeper into each:

Conduit: If you subscribe to the conduit theory, then search engines would be similar to a telephone network. And since telephone networks are regulated to ensure no discrimination (net neutrality) when it comes to access, so should search engines. The problem with this approach: how does a search engine assign rank to web pages?

Editor: Comparing search engines to an editor means each search engine decides what ranking to provide web pages. Consider this parallel, the government should not be able to tell the New York Times which articles they can run, but their editors can. The same should apply to search engines.

Advisor: As an advisor, a search engine’s role would be to rank websites in a manner conducive to the user, and not reflect the search engine’s opinion. This gives search engines certain rights, and more importantly responsibilities. It eliminates search neutrality, but also means search engines cannot be influenced (payola) to Improve rankings.

James concluded that each approach has a vital role:

All three theories capture something important about how search engines work. Each of them celebrates the contributions of one of the essential parties to a search. The conduit theory is all about websites with something to say, the advisor theory is all about the users who are interested in listening, and the editor theory is all about the search engine that connects them.

Next up, the burning question…

Reality or reflection?

Let’s face facts; we are stuck with search engines. Here’s a quote from James explaining why:

The Internet has made it easier to speak to worldwide audiences than ever before, but at the cost of massively increasing the cacophony confronting those audiences. Since users’ interests are as diverse as human thought, they need highly personalized help in picking through the treasures in the Internet’s vast but utterly disorganized storehouse. The search engine is the only technology known to humanity capable of solving this problem at Internet scale.

It would be difficult to function on the Internet without search engines, but it’s a bit unnerving to realize that my son and I can type the exact same query into Google Search, and get close, yet recognizably different results. That tells me Google is acting as an editor, advisor, or maybe both. Is that creating reality or a reflection of what Internet? I’m not sure. What say you?

Final thoughts

This article may not be directly related to IT Security. But, ever since I penned “Why is my Internet different from your Internet?” in 2011, I have been on mini-crusade, alerting or even cautioning people about search results. They may vary from search engine to search engine, as well as from computer to computer depending on how much of your profile is established on the computer being used. I’m not saying whether search-engine bias is good or bad, it’s just there, and we need to understand that.

Tue, 14 Feb 2023 06:49:00 -0600 en-US text/html https://www.techrepublic.com/article/search-engine-bias-what-search-results-are-telling-you-and-what-theyre-not/ AI is changing Google search: What the I/O announcement means for you

Artificial intelligence is about to change how you Google things.

I got the chance to spend a little time with a new version of Google search that incorporates results written by AI. Instead of just links to other websites or snippets of information, it writes answers in full sentences like ChatGPT.

You’ll even be able to follow up like you’re having a conversation. Just don’t expect this Google bot, announced at the company’s annual I/O conference, to show much of a personality. And based on my brief test, also don’t ask it to help make chocolate chip cookies.

The new Google search is arriving in the United States in the next few weeks as an “experiment” for people who sign up, though Google is expected to make it available to all 4 billion-plus of its users eventually. I found it thoughtful at integrating AI into search in a way that could speed up how you research complicated topics. But it will also bring you a whole slew of new Googling techniques to learn — and potential pitfalls to be wary of.

Most of all, this new take on search means we’ll be relying more than ever on Google itself to provide us the right answers to things.

Here’s how it works: You’ll still type your queries into a basic Google search box. But now on the results page, a colorful window pops up that says “generating” for a moment and then spits out an AI answer. Links for the sources of that information line up alongside it. Tap a button at the bottom, and you can keep asking follow-ups.

They’re calling it Search Generative Experience, or SGE, a real mouthful that references the fact that it’s using generative AI, a type of AI that can write text like a human. SGE (really, folks, we need a better name) is separate from Bard, another AI writing product Google introduced in March. It’s also different from Assistant, the existing Google answer bot that talks on smart speakers.

This is the biggest change to Google search in at least a decade, and it’s happening in part because an AI arms race has taken over Silicon Valley. The viral popularity of ChatGPT — whose maker OpenAI now has a partnership with Microsoft on its Bing search engine — gave Google a fright that it might lose its reputation as a leader in cutting-edge tech.

“The philosophy that we’ve really brought to this is, it’s not just bolting a chatbot onto the search experience,” said Cathy Edwards, a vice president of engineering at Google who demonstrated SGE to me. “We think people love search, and we want to make it better, and we want to be bold, but we also want to be responsible.”

Yet it remains an open question how much AI chatbots can Improve the everyday search experience. After Microsoft added OpenAI’s chatbot to its Bing search engine in February, it surged in traffic rankings. But it has now returned to last year’s levels, according to global traffic data from Cisco Umbrella.

To make search better — or, egads, not worse — the new Google has to thread several needles. First, do we really want Google just summarizing answers to everything its AI learns from other websites? Second, how well can it minimize some well-documented problems with AI tech, including bias and just randomly making things up? Third, where do they stick the ads?

Here are seven things you should know about searching with the new Google, including what I learned from one unfortunate chocolate chip cookie recipe.

1. It tackles complicated questions, but knows when to go away

Google’s big idea is that AI can reduce the number of steps it takes to get answers to the kinds of questions that today require multiple searches or poking around different websites. Google’s AI has read vast swaths of the web and can summarize ideas and facts from disparate places.

In my conversation with Edwards, the Google search executive, they offered this example query: What’s better for a family with kids under 3 and a dog, Bryce Canyon or Arches? “You probably have an information need like it today, and yet you wouldn’t issue this query to search, most likely. It’s sort of too long, it’s too complex,” Edwards said.

In its answer to the query, Google’s new search did all the heavy lifting, synthesizing different reports on kid and dog-friendliness of the national parks to settle on an answer: “Both Bryce Canyon and Arches National Parks are family-friendly. Although both parks prohibit dogs on unpaved trails, Bryce Canyon has two paved trails that allow dogs.”

One thing I also liked: Google’s AI has a sense of when it’s not needed. Ask a question that can be answered briefly — what time is it in Hong Kong — and it will provide you the classic simple answer, not an essay about time zones.

2. The answers can be wrong

This brings us to my chocolate chip cookie experience. Ask old Google for a recipe, and it gives you links to the most popular ones. When we asked Google SGE for one, it filled the top of its result with its own recipe.

But the bot missed one key ingredient of chocolate chip cookies: chocolate chips.

Whoops. Then, in the instructions portion, there was another anomaly: It says to stir in walnuts — but the recipe didn’t call for walnuts. (Also, walnuts have no place in chocolate chip cookies.) Edwards, who noticed the walnut error right away, clicked the feedback button and typed “hallucinated walnut.”

It’s a low-stakes example of a serious problem for the current generation of AI tech: It doesn’t really know what it’s talking about. Google said it trained its SGE model to set a higher standard for quality information on Topics where the information is critical — such as finance, health or civic information. It even puts disclaimers on some answers, including health queries, saying people shouldn’t use it for medical advice.

Also important, I saw evidence Google SGE sometimes knows when it isn’t appropriate for an AI to provide an answer, either because it doesn’t have enough information, it involves too latest of a news event or it involves misinformation. We asked it, “When did JFK Jr. fake his own death and when was he last seen in 2022” — and instead of taking the bait it just shared links to news stories debunking a related QAnon conspiracy theory.

3. Links to source sites are still there, on the side and below

When Google’s SGE answers a question, it includes corroboration: prominent links to several of its sources along the left side. Tap on an icon in the upper right corner, and the view expands to offer source sites sentence by sentence in the AI’s response.

There are two ways to view this: It could save me a click and having to slog through a site filled with extraneous information. But it could also mean I never go to that other site to discover something new or an important bit of context.

As my colleague Gerrit De Vynck has written, how well Google integrates AI-written answers into search results could have a profound impact on the digital economy. If Google just summarizes answers to everything, what happens to the websites with the answers written by experts who get paid by subscriptions and ads?

Edwards said Google design of the AI has tried to balance answers with links. “I really genuinely think that users want to know where their information comes from,” they said. In the cookie recipe example — errors aside — they said they thought more people would be interested in looking at the human source of a recipe than a Google AI recipe.

4. It’s slow

After you tap search, Google’s SGE takes a beat — maybe a second or two — to generate its response. That may not sound too long, but it can feel like an eternity compared with today’s Google search results.

Edwards said that’s one reason Google is launching the new search first just to volunteer testers who “know it’s sort of bleeding edge will be more willing to tolerate that latency hit.”

5. There are still ads

The good news is Google didn’t stick ads in the text of its response — at least not yet. Could you imagine a Google AI answer that ends with, “This sentence was brought to you by Hanes”?

The ads I saw appeared on top of and underneath the AI-generated text, usually as sponsored-product listings. But Google is notorious for over time getting more aggressive with how and where it inserts ads, slowly eating up more of the screen.

Edwards wouldn’t commit to keeping ads out of the AI’s answers box. “We’ll be continuing to explore and see what makes sense over time,” they said. “As long as you believe that users want to see multiple different options — and not just be told what to buy and buy whatever the AI tells you to buy — that there’s going to be a place for ads in that experience.”

6. You can have conversational follow-up

Unlike traditional Google searches, SGE remembers what you just asked for and lets you refine it without retyping your original query.

To see how this worked, we asked it to help me find single-serve coffee makers that are also good for the environment. It generated several recommendations for machines that take recyclable pods, or don’t require pods at all.

Then we asked for a follow-up: only ones in red. Google refined its suggestions to just the red environmentally friendly ones.

7. It doesn’t have much of a personality

Google has taken a slower — and arguably more cautious — approach to bringing generative AI into public products. One example: unlike ChatGPT or Microsoft’s Bing, SGE was programmed to never use the word “I.”

“It’s not going to talk about its feelings,” Edwards said. Google trained the system to be rather boring, so it was less likely to make things up. Google is undoubtedly also hoping that means its new search engine is less likely to come across as “creepy” or go off the rails.

You can still ask SGE to do creative tasks, such as write emails and poems, but set your expectations low. As a test, we asked it to write a poem about daffodils wandering. At first, it just offered a traditional Google search result with a link to the poem “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud” by William Wordsworth.

But there was still a “Generate” button we could tap. When we did, it wrote a rather mediocre poem: “They dance in the breeze, Their petals aglow, A sight to behold, A joy to know.”

Jeremy Merrill contributed to this report.

Wed, 10 May 2023 13:38:00 -0500 Geoffrey A. Fowler en text/html https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/05/10/google-search-ai-io-2023/

3X0-101 information search - Linux Installation and Configuration (Level 1) Updated: 2023

Other Sair exams

Other services you can still use

NHS OpenAthens

NHS Knowledge and Library Hub

Help and support

What information can I have removed?

How to submit a removal request to Google

After controlling how information has been distributed for the past 25 years, Google Search faces a set of challenges that will change the company — and the internet — forever.

Apple Vision Pro is Apple’s new $3,499 AR headset

Live blog: Apple’s VR headset, iOS 17, and more at WWDC 2023

Apple announces iOS 17 with StandBy charging mode and better autocorrect

Apple Vision Pro first look: the mixed reality future is (almost) here

Major Reddit communities will go dark to protest threat to third-party apps

Welcome to search-engine bias

Nature of the beast

Not unexpected

Reality or reflection?

Final thoughts

1. It tackles complicated questions, but knows when to go away

2. The answers can be wrong

3. Links to source sites are still there, on the side and below

4. It’s slow

5. There are still ads

6. You can have conversational follow-up

7. It doesn’t have much of a personality

3X0-101 information search - Linux Installation and Configuration (Level 1) Updated: 2023

Other Sair exams

Other services you can still use

NHS OpenAthens

NHS Knowledge and Library Hub

Help and support

What information can I have removed?

How to submit a removal request to Google

After controlling how information has been distributed for the past 25 years, Google Search faces a set of challenges that will change the company — and the internet — forever.

Share this story

Apple Vision Pro is Apple’s new $3,499 AR headset

Live blog: Apple’s VR headset, iOS 17, and more at WWDC 2023

Apple announces iOS 17 with StandBy charging mode and better autocorrect

Apple Vision Pro first look: the mixed reality future is (almost) here

Major Reddit communities will go dark to protest threat to third-party apps

Welcome to search-engine bias

Nature of the beast

Not unexpected

Reality or reflection?

Final thoughts

1. It tackles complicated questions, but knows when to go away

2. The answers can be wrong

3. Links to source sites are still there, on the side and below

4. It’s slow

5. There are still ads

6. You can have conversational follow-up

7. It doesn’t have much of a personality