upvote
I won't be able to use their AI results if they are, personally. If I ask the question "what is the best tool for doing x" and I can't trust that the answer is going to be the truth according to all available information, then the AI is useless or worse, misleading. If google is unbiased, and only highlights paid advertiser mentions, no one will pay. I'd only accept this if it was a clear separation of LLM response and ads in a sidebar or something similar. Other people may not care. Many happily read politically affiliated news knowing that their opinions and actions may be influenced by a media source.
reply
Let me let you in on a little industry "secret"

You can't trust those results no matter what

The pages that they pull in to source that data all contain affiliate links and companies contact websites to get their tools to the tops of those lists by paying money often monthly. I know this because I do this...

It's basically standard SEO but it also manipulates AI like ChatGPT very very easily

reply
> It's basically standard SEO but it also manipulates AI like ChatGPT very very easily

There are key differences.

1) Google doesn't get paid for the SEO, so even is crime is involved, Google isn't directly responsible.

2) AI ads are unmarked, which is illegal pretty much everywhere. And because of the way LLMs work, it is impossible to tell where a given output came from, neither which part of the prompt/context nor whether it's from the prompt or training.

reply
> 1) Google doesn't get paid for the SEO, so even is crime is involved, Google isn't directly responsible.

Google doesn't get paid directly for the SEO but they definitely benefit monetarily. Do a recipe search and ask yourself if these are the results the user would like to see. Google benefits by not penalizing sites which litter themselves with ads. It's not that indirect.

reply
Why would AI ads be unmarked? Most of the Google AI search results I get show sources. They're just summarizing top results for you, injecting a ad shown as an ad into that isn't tremendously different than how Google worked before.
reply
I'm just talking about the methods that business owners can use for getting good SEO or AI recommendations are basically the same thing, not sure what point you are trying to make?
reply
Simplest way to do is by running affiliate program for your SaaS and shady marketers will do everything to get sales if it's profitable.
reply
Eh not really

They won't get you on any worthwhile list unless it's their own because it's too risky for them and any site they would publish it on would want to use their own affiliate link. Unless of course we are talking about something like Medium or YouTube which does work

And then of course there's the fraudsters who will bid on branded keywords we have banned dozens of people for that

reply
The cheat code for that used to be Reddit before they got growth-hacked 10+ years ago.
reply
Actually Reddit is receiving more organic traffic than ever before and is more valuable to game than ever

But yes actually I was doing this about 15 years ago in the men's fashion subreddit for one of my companies lol

reply
Can you elaborate a bit on how that looks like in practice?
reply
This is why local AI is so important
reply
It's already being trained on "public" (ethical or otherwise) data. So, it already has ingested that kind of "optimization" during pre-training and training.

I don't think you can fine-tune your way out of it.

reply
People still think these things are smart. That if their word generator eats enough of the Internet, it will somehow give them the real information that's otherwise hidden. Or perhaps a better word; filter the bullshit.

To filter bullshit it would first have to understand bullshit, and it doesn't. That's why an LLM will tell you the solution to a problem that doesn't work, and argue with you when you correct it.

reply
Sadly critical thinking skills have atrophied steeply in the last decade.
reply
This is what bothers me a lot. For the people who doesn't know how it's made or want to believe, it's a miracle.

For me, it's a resource wasting text generator. I'll not lie, I don't use OpenAI, Mistral or Anthropic's models, even for coding. I prefer to read my API docs and cry once.

I used Gemini, five or six times in total. Twice I asked a couple of very specific things, and it unearthed them. Since they were not products, but information, that was helpful. Twice, it has given wrong information. When I "told" it, there was another way, it said "of course there are two ways", etc. Tasteless and time wasting.

I don't like using an LLM all day long, or offload my thinking to them. It's the ultimate self-poisoning incident.

And as you say, these algorithms can't know right/wrong/logical/bullshit, etc. They just spew out text.

reply
I was just reading another post yesterday and your comment reminds me of this one [0], same sort of format and experience of the submitted article of the HN post that comment is on.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211730

reply
Something I’ve also seen multiple times is an LLM giving wrong information, I tell it it’s not right, then it tells me I’m “absolutely right” and it provides the exact same answer and tells me that one will work.
reply
This is far from widespread at the moment, so it'll be possible to at least use the current cutting-edge models locally in the future.
reply
Far from widespread? SEO has seeped to all crevices of the internet for the last 20 years.
reply
By this measure, any information you can get whatsoever is biased and there is no reason to trust anything at all.
reply
All information has some sort of bias, as no information can truly be unbiased. There is no reason to trust any specific piece of information but taken in aggregate one can disambiguate the biases.
reply
So we are in agreement.
reply
The major difference is that right now when you land on a page you can do your due diligence and decide if you trust the source. You can still be tricked, but it’s harder and you can get better at the detection.

With LLMs, everything is given the same importance so you have no idea if the data came from a reputable source or an obvious SEO junk website.

reply
AI can also provide the sources. And if you need to be certain, you should ask for that.
reply
That doesn't solve this particular problem. Your local model was trained on reddit comments written by bots.
reply
Local AI will have the bias that existed at the time of its training, which is different from no bias. For stuff that needs to be current, a local LLM would need to search the net regardless.
reply
And since "no bias" isn't something that actually exists in reality when it comes to language or even anything near humans, "bias in local model I can introspect" will always be miles ahead of "bias I know is there, but cannot introspect".
reply
How do you make sure that the model you run locally is not tainted? Is there even a way to confirm this without providing the complete training set?
reply
Fwiw I just run kiwix/zeal locally which has old school search index of all articles in wiki/stackoverflow etc. That seems enough for most of my day to day use.
reply
It's less compromised, but it's still basing the answer on compromised queries. This is why I pay for independent reviews (e.g Which) where their incentives are more aligned with yours.
reply
deleted
reply
Not if the models come from Google. The ads will be implicit in the model. X is better that Y an Z would be easy to add to a the training set.
reply
Does this mean the model must be retrained every time a new ad is posted? How much are AI ads going to cost?
reply
Yeah, I meant not individual ads but implicit forced/influenced preference for certain brands. Let’s say it always picks Coke vs Pepsi when giving an example of a soft drink. Or picks BMW when asked to pick the best car. Which cloud provider is the best? -Why, GCP of course, etc.

Companies then get to bid for a preference “place”. This is more like Google paying to be the search engine default in Firefox.

reply
How does that help if it's using search? You get whatever the search engine outputs
reply
Local AI models pull in search results just like ChatGPT does ...

And they are trained on web data just like any other model...

reply
Sorry to tell you that all websites you get when you google "what is the best tool for doing x" are already manipulated, including reddit conversations.
reply
Don't forget the YouTube videos, those "top 5 x" robot videos are the worst.
reply
Those sort of things are already highly biased because of the marketing spam that the modelsmare trained on.

I'd be more worried about AI convincing you that you need a product or expensive solution when you actually don't.

reply
This has always been the case but with AI its going to get even worse. I mean a lot of people associate AI with higher "intelligence" sorta say, now you sprinkle in some political propaganda there from the highest bidder and you are going to have a big problem in the future especially if the populace ended up trusting these corpo AI blindly.
reply
What were you doing before hand? Do you believe you were getting perfectly unbiased information?
reply
Then you already can’t use it because it already doesn’t give you a result like that.
reply
There is no “true answer given all available infomation” maybe unless you give an eval function.
reply
This is not an elephant in the room, this is so obvious and discussed all the time. What else is Google going to do, give up their one and only goose that lays the golden eggs?

Regular search being replaced with AI search means regular search (with ads) being replaced with AI search (with ads).

The benefit of AI search will be that it’s much better “integrated” in the answer, aka even harder to detect.

reply
They could have ads alongside the AI response, in a completely separate section of the page (like search results are). That seems fine. But if they start including ads in the AI context window then it becomes impossible to tell what parts of the response are driven by advertisement vs organic results.

It seems like for now they are making an effort to keep them separate.

reply
Elephants in the room are obvious by definition.
reply
I think the point of the phrase is that it is obvious but people refuse to talk about it
reply
> This is not an elephant in the room, this is so obvious.

Maybe they grew up in an environment where the phrase "elephant in the room" meant a situation where people enter a room, notice an elephant there, and immediately scream "Jesus Christ there's a goddamn elephant!"

reply
Usually the elephant in a room is something very evident about which no one wants to discuss about
reply
But everyone is discussing how AI will have ads, so it’s not an elephant in the room.
reply
But wouldn't that break FCC rules?
reply
FTC rules. And probably. Unless they disclosed somewhere that there were ads informing results, in which case the fine print wins again.
reply
Since when does Google care about laws?
reply
Is this administration really interested in enforcing regulations? The FCC might make noises, but only until Trump gets another kickback.
reply
> their one and only goose that lays the golden eggs?

Eh, it really isn't the only goose in goog town. Cloud is at ~20% of their total revenue, and probably is going up w/ their hardware success and other licensing deals. I'm curious to see what goog can do with their properties if this trend continues. Less reliance on ads could be interesting. (many former googlers have said that pressure from the ad business was felt across all their products)

reply
The method is already public for some time now. I bookmarked it since I share it a lot:

https://research.google/blog/mechanism-design-for-large-lang...

It's the same. There are slots, there's bidding, there're bidders. Same ad model, evolved for AI era.

reply
Sigh, thank you for sharing this. This is disheartening ( even if not unexpected ) given that I actually like current version of gemini based on how well it performed -- all things considered -- relative to gpt sub on recommendation check.
reply
I never ask computers about a certain device directly. I lost that faith eons ago. I first search for candidates, then go to official pages to check specs and then read / watch reviews, then decide.

Yes, it takes time, but I'm the one to blame if something goes wrong about it.

Also, it helps that I don't use Google for searching the web. I prefer Kagi.

I use Gemini (and only Gemini) to dig the net for the things that I can't find despite my best efforts. They are generally unbranded or very specific things, so ads doesn't play much role there.

I'm a bad customer for Google. :D

reply
The article literally says they pay to determine the answers given to you.
reply
That's the real question and it's not hypothetical. Google already adjusts organic rankings based on advertiser relationships in ways that aren't documented. With AI Mode the surface area for that kind of influence is much larger and much less visible. A search result you can inspect. A synthesized answer you can't.
reply
Don't they already to this with maps routing? I thought this was the norm.
reply
Do you mean something like rerouting you to make sure you pass a mcdonald’s at lunch time? Or are you talking about mcdonald’s always showing up when you search for food along your route? Rerouting would surprise me, but really it wouldn’t surprise me that much at this point.
reply
Of course. Just look at the SEO industry Google created. You can't search for anything without a full page of sponsored/SEO bullshit, and everyone agrees it's precisely why Google results are less relevant today than 10 years ago. But here we are, this is exactly the same thing. We used to search with a term, Google monetized that. We now search with a sentence, do you think Google's gonna leave that cash on the table?
reply
That will be fun because it's illegal to accept money to promote a product without indication that you have done so. The FTC requires "clear and conspicuous disclosure" for such endorsements.
reply
Crime is legal now
reply
Unenforced crimes are still crimes, you have to rewrite laws to change that.
reply
or get a blanket pardon
reply
Seems to work fine for product placement in other media. Apparently "clear and conspicuous disclosure" can be a footnote hidden somewhere in the credits.
reply
Do you expect them to include a red flashing light and alarm in the middle of the scene? The credits are where I would expect to see those disclosures
reply
I'd expect the notice to be on the same screen where the ad or ad-like content is shown if the regulation intends to actually make a difference.
reply
So you expect the movie to pause for a disclaimer?
reply
You can label the whole output, every time, right? May include sponsored content or something.
reply
The chat interface has the disclaimer "AI responses may include mistakes." and that appears to be enough to relieve them of any responsibility for the responses. In a similar manner, wouldn't it be enough to add a disclaimer that says "AI responses may include sponsored content."?
reply
> and that appears to be enough to relieve them of any responsibility for the responses.

Unenforceable disclaimers to discourage people from holding you responsible have always existed. "Stay 300 ft back from truck", etc.

With AI, that might be enough of a disclosure, but it might not.

reply
Doesn't matter as long as you bribe the right people. The government is completely compromised.
reply
It depends on what influence you have in mind. Hidden advertising is illegal in most jurisdictions.
reply
Will Google choose to negatively impact its bottom line for the sake of giving their users a higher quality experience?

No. It's not 2005 anymore.

reply
All signs point to yes. It’s Google’s profit center.
reply
Even if it's not right now, it's hard not seeing this happening at some point
reply
Not just their customers.

Their entire ideology. An LLM is the perfect propaganda technology, the more people outsource their thinking to them, the easier they will be for Big Corporate to control.

It's crazy to me that AI developments have such a big uncritical following from people that claim to be pro-freedom, especially around these parts. The end goal is and always has been enslavement to capital.

reply
it’s fair to be skeptical. But then again we already know that this wasn’t the case with search results. So not sure why we would assume it is this time around.
reply
The truth is brought to you by the highest bidder. Individuals, companies and nation states already pay for public relations. If Google offered them a service they'd pay good money.
reply
Already has. I asked yesterday a question on different types of graphics cards vs power consumption, I and it asked me if I’d like links to buy some graphics cards
reply
... Yes, people talk about that.
reply
What about political ads? Will the AI lie about news to further the interests of Google's patrons?
reply
for sure, i guess this is one of the experiments that confirms that would work https://openai.com/index/where-the-goblins-came-from/
reply
I couldn't write better satire if I tried:

> A search through GPT‑5.5’s SFT data found many datapoints containing “goblin” and “gremlin.” Further investigation revealed a whole family of other odd creatures: raccoons, trolls, ogres, and pigeons were identified as other tic words, while most uses of frog turned out to be legitimate.

reply
Obviously.
reply
This is the problem with the black box model. These adCompanies control what people see. People don't know if they can trust the generated slop.

It is the end of the open web. People need to wake up and realise what full Evil is being planned here. Google tried this before, e. g. AMP and what not.

reply
This never occurred to traditional search results so highly doubt they’ll start now.
reply