1771
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 58008@lemmy.world 223 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] Magnum@infosec.pub 63 points 1 month ago

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

[-] Deckname@olio.cafe 53 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

At this point, not having AI would be a selling point.

[-] Magnum@infosec.pub 31 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I wish they would have talked about how many trees you need to offset an ecosia AI search

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Mwa@thelemmy.club 38 points 1 month ago

someone tell them AI isnt good for the environment

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 185 points 1 month ago

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

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 85 points 1 month ago

I hope they learn their lesson from their own poll.

[-] Balinares@pawb.social 50 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean, the poll was like as not a publicity stunt, to draw attention to the fact DDG is not doing AI. All the same, the fact they are making "no AI" a selling point is noteworthy.

EDIT: I stand corrected -- apparently DDG does do AI presently. Hopefully they're serious about reconsidering that, then.

[-] mjr@infosec.pub 59 points 1 month ago

… the fact DDG is not doing AI.

They are, unless you opt out.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 14 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] setsubyou@lemmy.world 105 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 109 points 1 month ago

It still creeps me out that people use LLMs as search engines nowadays.

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago

That was the plan. That's (I'm guessing) why the search results have slowly yet noticeably degraded since Ai has been consumer level.

They WANT you to use Ai so they can cater the answers. (tin foil hat)

I really do believe that though. Call me a conspiracy theorist but damn it, it fits.

[-] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's not that wild of a conspiracy theory. Hard to get definite proof though because you would have to compare actual search results from the past with the results of the same search from today, and we unfortunately can't travel back in time.

But there are indicators for your theory to be true:

  • It's evident that in UI design the top area of the screen is the most valuable. AI results are always shown there. So we know that selling AI is of utmost importance to Google.
  • The Google search algorithm was altered quite often over the years, these "rollouts" are publicly available information, and a lot of people have written about the changes as soon as they happened.
  • Page ranking fueled a whole industry which was called SEO (Search Engine Optimization). A lot of effort went into understanding how google ranks its results. This was of course done with a different goal in mind but the conclusions from this field can be used to determine if and how search results got worse over time
  • It's an established fact that companies benefit from users never leaving the company's ecosystem. Google as an example tried to prevent a clickthrough to the actual websites in the past, with technologies like AMP or by displaying snippets.
  • If users rely on the AI output Google can effectively achieve this: the user is not leaving the page and Google has full control over what content the user sees.

Now, all of the points listed above can be proven. If you put all of that together it seems at least highly likely that your "conspiracy theory" is in fact true.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 74 points 1 month ago

So you make noai the default, yes?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Deestan@lemmy.world 73 points 1 month ago

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

[-] sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] eksb@programming.dev 25 points 1 month ago

There were probably also people who voted for "yes AI" who would have voted for "a little bit of ai when I explicitly ask for it" if they had the option.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 65 points 1 month ago

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

[-] letsgo2themall@lemmy.world 52 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[-] coffee_nutcase207@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

It's horrible for the environment too and wastes electricity. It's fucked up that Google makes everything you search an AI search.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] sturmblast@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

THE AI by default marketing is failing? Shocker

[-] dantheclamman@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago

I think LLMs are fine for specific uses. A useful technology for brainstorming, debugging code, generic code examples, etc. People are just weary of oligarchs mandating how we use technology. We want to be customers but they want to instead shape how we work, as if we are livestock

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Right? Like let me choose if and when I want to use it. Don't shove it down our throats and then complain when we get upset or don't use it how you want us to use it. We'll use it however we want to use it, not you.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I should further add - don't fucking use it in places it's not capable of properly functioning and then trying to deflect the blame on the AI from yourself, like what Air Canada did.

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatbot-misinformation-what-travellers-should-know

When Air Canada's chatbot gave incorrect information to a traveller, the airline argued its chatbot is "responsible for its own actions".

Artificial intelligence is having a growing impact on the way we travel, and a remarkable new case shows what AI-powered chatbots can get wrong – and who should pay. In 2022, Air Canada's chatbot promised a discount that wasn't available to passenger Jake Moffatt, who was assured that he could book a full-fare flight for his grandmother's funeral and then apply for a bereavement fare after the fact.

According to a civil-resolutions tribunal decision last Wednesday, when Moffatt applied for the discount, the airline said the chatbot had been wrong – the request needed to be submitted before the flight – and it wouldn't offer the discount. Instead, the airline said the chatbot was a "separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions". Air Canada argued that Moffatt should have gone to the link provided by the chatbot, where he would have seen the correct policy.

The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal rejected that argument, ruling that Air Canada had to pay Moffatt $812.02 (£642.64) in damages and tribunal fees

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] MBech@feddit.dk 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] thegoodyinthehoody@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 month ago

As much as I agree with this poll, duck duck go is a very self selecting audience. The number doesn’t actually mean much statistically.

If the general public knew that “AI” is much closer to predictive text than intelligence they might be more wary of it

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] radio@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 month 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%.

[-] MutantTailThing@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

AI? FuckFuckNo

[-] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I would like to petition to rename AI to

Simulated
Human
Intelligence
Technology

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Novis@lemdro.id 32 points 1 month 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?"

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] roserose56@lemmy.zip 29 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] FirmDistribution@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago

omfg you don't say

[-] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

I guess they haven’t asked me or it’d be 91%

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 18 points 1 month 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.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 17 points 1 month ago

It's funny how many people ruffle their feathers over this. Same type of comments as when somebody first shared this poll here: you can't expect this to be representative, it's not a yes/no question etc.

Let's put it like this: I do not want AI pushed on me in almost every online situation. That is a yes/no question to me.

Why? Because it's not ready, wastes the planet, and is the USA's big gamble.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 16 points 1 month ago

I would have no problem with AI if it could be useful.

The problem is no matter how many times I'm promised otherwise it cannot automate my job and talk to the idiots for me. It just hallucinates a random gibberish which is obviously unhealthful.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] ArsonButCute@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago

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

Then go follow this guide

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1771 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

82070 readers
3129 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS