Google and Bing are locked in a death match to bring AI to every single search, every application, and for the most part on search for me it’s unreliable, costs the search engine a lot more, and at least in my case has only been useful in one search.

They won’t let you turn it off however – there’s a trick CNET posted earlier today but it seems to be hit or miss with where it works… for me it only works on Edge browser that’s not logged into my Google account, and neither Chrome nor Chrome incognito work to show that web option.

Microsoft and Google want you to think of them when you think of AI, but all I see in their results are cobbled together usually incorrect or irrelevant information. I usually don’t want an AI overview, and it costs thousands of times more than a simple search does… and I’m ignoring that section usually. I can think of one time in the era of AI search where it came in handy for what I was looking for and I still couldn’t trust what it told me.

I am looking for a very specific article… how to milk an AI… Bing thinks I want a two page defense of AI. I don’t. I want an article entitled “How to Milk and AI” – it’s all right if it doesn’t find it.

I’m not putting Bing’s AI down, but there is no need to waste enormous amounts of processing power drafting several copies of text before choosing one defending the concepts and uses of AI when I am simply searching for text. I did not say “Bing! Defend thyself!”

I worry more about useless overuse of AI and how much it costs in terms of electricity and environmental impact than that it’s there. I don’t hate or fear it but I straight up am avoiding search engines that force it on me because for me it’s not delivering the results and it’s wasting resources when it’s not needed.

I want a search engine guys… give me that and a button to generate an AI powered overview and I’ll be happy… and you know what? I will use the AI overview occasionally… you can even make it so it’s a Pause AI and not turning it off so you can keep pestering me about it like Microsoft does to get me to use the Edge browser (yeah, it’s probably better, but I’m not going to it)

Editorial: May I suggest an option for an AI pause on search by Paul E King first appeared on Pocketables.

A version of this post originally appeared on Tedium, Ernie Smith’s newsletter, which hunts for the end of the long tail.

Last month, Google announced some big changes to its search engine that are, in a word, infuriating, to users like myself.

Google has started adding AI overviews to many of its search results, which essentially generate pre-processed answers to search queries. If you’re using Google to actually find websites rather than get answers, it $!@(&!@ sucks.

But in the midst of all this, Google quietly added something else to its results—a “Web” filter that presents what Google used to look like a decade ago, no extra junk. While Google made its AI-focused changes known on its biggest stage—during its Google I/O event—the Web filter was curiously announced on Twitter by Search Liaison Danny Sullivan.

As Sullivan wrote:

We’ve added this after hearing from some that there are times when they’d prefer to just see links to web pages in their search results, such as if they’re looking for longer-form text documents, using a device with limited internet access, or those who just prefer text-based results shown separately from search features. If you’re in that group, enjoy!

The results are fascinating. It’s essentially Google, minus the extra fluff. No parsing of the information in the results. No surfacing metadata like address or link info. No knowledge panels, but also, no ads. It looks like the Google we learned to love in the early 2000s, buried under the “More” menu.

This is what Google search used to look like, without any extras, and it can look like that again.Ernie Smith

For power searchers like myself, it’s likely going to be an amazing tool. But Google’s decision to bury it ensures that few people will use it. The company has essentially bet that you’ll be better off with a pre-parsed guess produced by its AI engine.

It’s worth understanding the tradeoffs, though. A simplified view does not replace the declining quality of Google’s results, largely caused by decades of SEO optimization by website creators. The same overly optimized results are going to be there, like it or not. It is not Google circa 2001; it is a Google-circa-2001 presentation of Google circa 2024, a very different site.

But if you understand the tradeoffs, it can be a great tool.

And here’s the trick to using it without having to click the ‘Web’ option buried in a menu every single time. Google does not make it easy, but by adding a URL parameter to your search—in this case, “udm=14”—you can get directly to the Web results in a search.

That sounds like extra work until you realize that many browsers allow you to add custom search engines by adding the %s entry as a stand-in for the search term you put in. And it works great in the case of Google.

You can specify the default url for the omnibar search on your browser. Ernie Smith

In Vivaldi, my weapon of choice, I did this:

●Go to Settings -> Search

●Look at the list of search engines, and hit the plus button at the bottom left of the dialog box to add a new one

●Name the new item “Google Web Only,” and give it the nickname of “gw”

●Set the URL as https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14

●Set it as your default search

Now, when you use the omnibar on your browser of choice, it will automatically push you to the Google Web Only search. If you want a more traditional search, add a “g” in front of the search in your omnibar, and it will give you the full-fat search, knowledge panels and all. Don’t want to make it your default? Don’t.

A variant of this should work for most Chromium-based browsers, including Chrome proper. It is also possible in Firefox with an extension. Safari, which does not allow you to add custom search engines by default, is a little more complicated, but it is possible through the use of custom extensions like HyperWeb for iOS. I’m still looking for a Safari-for-Mac solution.

Or, you can use a front-end that I created at udm14.com or udm14.org.

When you want something more elemental, less adulterated, it’s there, no extra junk.

It’s depressing that it’s gotten to this, isn’t it?

Last month when Google introduced its new AI search tool, called AI Overviews, the company seemed confident that it had tested the tool sufficiently, noting in the announcement that “people have already used AI Overviews billions of times through our experiment in Search Labs.” The tool doesn’t just return links to Web pages, as in a typical Google search, but returns an answer that it has generated based on various sources, which it links to below the answer. But immediately after the launch users began posting examples of extremely wrong answers, including a pizza recipe that included glue and the interesting fact that a dog has played in the NBA.

Renée DiResta has been tracking online misinformation for many years as the technical research manager at Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

While the pizza recipe is unlikely to convince anyone to squeeze on the Elmer’s, not all of AI Overview’s extremely wrong answers are so obvious—and some have the potential to be quite harmful. Renée DiResta has been tracking online misinformation for many years as the technical research manager at Stanford’s Internet Observatory and has a new book out about the online propagandists who “turn lies into reality.” She has studied the spread of medical misinformation via social media, so IEEE Spectrum spoke to her about whether AI search is likely to bring an onslaught of erroneous medical advice to unwary users.

I know you’ve been tracking disinformation on the Web for many years. Do you expect the introduction of AI-augmented search tools like Google’s AI Overviews to make the situation worse or better?

Renée DiResta: It’s a really interesting question. There are a couple of policies that Google has had in place for a long time that appear to be in tension with what’s coming out of AI-generated search. That’s made me feel like part of this is Google trying to keep up with where the market has gone. There’s been an incredible acceleration in the release of generative AI tools, and we are seeing Big Tech incumbents trying to make sure that they stay competitive. I think that’s one of the things that’s happening here.

We have long known that hallucinations are a thing that happens with large language models. That’s not new. It’s the deployment of them in a search capacity that I think has been rushed and ill-considered because people expect search engines to give them authoritative information. That’s the expectation you have on search, whereas you might not have that expectation on social media.

There are plenty of examples of comically poor results from AI search, things like how many rocks we should eat per day [a response that was drawn for an Onion article]. But I’m wondering if we should be worried about more serious medical misinformation. I came across one blog post about Google’s AI Overviews responses about stem-cell treatments. The problem there seemed to be that the AI search tool was sourcing its answers from disreputable clinics that were offering unproven treatments. Have you seen other examples of that kind of thing?

DiResta: I have. It’s returning information synthesized from the data that it’s trained on. The problem is that it does not seem to be adhering to the same standards that have long gone into how Google thinks about returning search results for health information. So what I mean by that is Google has, for upwards of 10 years at this point, had a search policy called Your Money or Your Life. Are you familiar with that?

I don’t think so.

DiResta: Your Money or Your Life acknowledges that for queries related to finance and health, Google has a responsibility to hold search results to a very high standard of care, and it’s paramount to get the information correct. People are coming to Google with sensitive questions and they’re looking for information to make materially impactful decisions about their lives. They’re not there for entertainment when they’re asking a question about how to respond to a new cancer diagnosis, for example, or what sort of retirement plan they should be subscribing to. So you don’t want content farms and random Reddit posts and garbage to be the results that are returned. You want to have reputable search results.

That framework of Your Money or Your Life has informed Google’s work on these high-stakes topics for quite some time. And that’s why I think it’s disturbing for people to see the AI-generated search results regurgitating clearly wrong health information from low-quality sites that perhaps happened to be in the training data.

So it seems like AI overviews is not following that same policy—or that’s what it appears like from the outside?

DiResta: That’s how it appears from the outside. I don’t know how they’re thinking about it internally. But those screenshots you’re seeing—a lot of these instances are being traced back to an isolated social media post or a clinic that’s disreputable but exists—are out there on the Internet. It’s not simply making things up. But it’s also not returning what we would consider to be a high-quality result in formulating its response.

I saw that Google responded to some of the problems with a blog post saying that it is aware of these poor results and it’s trying to make improvements. And I can read you the one bullet point that addressed health. It said, “For topics like news and health, we already have strong guardrails in place. In the case of health, we launched additional triggering refinements to enhance our quality protections.” Do you know what that means?

DiResta: That blog posts is an explanation that [AI Overviews] isn’t simply hallucinating—the fact that it’s pointing to URLs is supposed to be a guardrail because that enables the user to go and follow the result to its source. This is a good thing. They should be including those sources for transparency and so that outsiders can review them. However, it is also a fair bit of onus to put on the audience, given the trust that Google has built up over time by returning high-quality results in its health information search rankings.

I know one topic that you’ve tracked over the years has been disinformation about vaccine safety. Have you seen any evidence of that kind of disinformation making its way into AI search?

DiResta: I haven’t, though I imagine outside research teams are now testing results to see what appears. Vaccines have been so much a focus of the conversation around health misinformation for quite some time, I imagine that Google has had people looking specifically at that topic in internal reviews, whereas some of these other topics might be less in the forefront of the minds of the quality teams that are tasked with checking if there are bad results being returned.

What do you think Google’s next moves should be to prevent medical misinformation in AI search?

DiResta: Google has a perfectly good policy to pursue. Your Money or Your Life is a solid ethical guideline to incorporate into this manifestation of the future of search. So it’s not that I think there’s a new and novel ethical grounding that needs to happen. I think it’s more ensuring that the ethical grounding that exists remains foundational to the new AI search tools.

Google and Bing are locked in a death match to bring AI to every single search, every application, and for the most part on search for me it’s unreliable, costs the search engine a lot more, and at least in my case has only been useful in one search.

They won’t let you turn it off however – there’s a trick CNET posted earlier today but it seems to be hit or miss with where it works… for me it only works on Edge browser that’s not logged into my Google account, and neither Chrome nor Chrome incognito work to show that web option.

Microsoft and Google want you to think of them when you think of AI, but all I see in their results are cobbled together usually incorrect or irrelevant information. I usually don’t want an AI overview, and it costs thousands of times more than a simple search does… and I’m ignoring that section usually. I can think of one time in the era of AI search where it came in handy for what I was looking for and I still couldn’t trust what it told me.

I am looking for a very specific article… how to milk an AI… Bing thinks I want a two page defense of AI. I don’t. I want an article entitled “How to Milk and AI” – it’s all right if it doesn’t find it.

I’m not putting Bing’s AI down, but there is no need to waste enormous amounts of processing power drafting several copies of text before choosing one defending the concepts and uses of AI when I am simply searching for text. I did not say “Bing! Defend thyself!”

I worry more about useless overuse of AI and how much it costs in terms of electricity and environmental impact than that it’s there. I don’t hate or fear it but I straight up am avoiding search engines that force it on me because for me it’s not delivering the results and it’s wasting resources when it’s not needed.

I want a search engine guys… give me that and a button to generate an AI powered overview and I’ll be happy… and you know what? I will use the AI overview occasionally… you can even make it so it’s a Pause AI and not turning it off so you can keep pestering me about it like Microsoft does to get me to use the Edge browser (yeah, it’s probably better, but I’m not going to it)

Editorial: May I suggest an option for an AI pause on search by Paul E King first appeared on Pocketables.

Google and Bing are locked in a death match to bring AI to every single search, every application, and for the most part on search for me it’s unreliable, costs the search engine a lot more, and at least in my case has only been useful in one search.

They won’t let you turn it off however – there’s a trick CNET posted earlier today but it seems to be hit or miss with where it works… for me it only works on Edge browser that’s not logged into my Google account, and neither Chrome nor Chrome incognito work to show that web option.

Microsoft and Google want you to think of them when you think of AI, but all I see in their results are cobbled together usually incorrect or irrelevant information. I usually don’t want an AI overview, and it costs thousands of times more than a simple search does… and I’m ignoring that section usually. I can think of one time in the era of AI search where it came in handy for what I was looking for and I still couldn’t trust what it told me.

I am looking for a very specific article… how to milk an AI… Bing thinks I want a two page defense of AI. I don’t. I want an article entitled “How to Milk and AI” – it’s all right if it doesn’t find it.

I’m not putting Bing’s AI down, but there is no need to waste enormous amounts of processing power drafting several copies of text before choosing one defending the concepts and uses of AI when I am simply searching for text. I did not say “Bing! Defend thyself!”

I worry more about useless overuse of AI and how much it costs in terms of electricity and environmental impact than that it’s there. I don’t hate or fear it but I straight up am avoiding search engines that force it on me because for me it’s not delivering the results and it’s wasting resources when it’s not needed.

I want a search engine guys… give me that and a button to generate an AI powered overview and I’ll be happy… and you know what? I will use the AI overview occasionally… you can even make it so it’s a Pause AI and not turning it off so you can keep pestering me about it like Microsoft does to get me to use the Edge browser (yeah, it’s probably better, but I’m not going to it)

Editorial: May I suggest an option for an AI pause on search by Paul E King first appeared on Pocketables.