Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
JKCalhoun | on: As AI eats the web, the internet’s collective memory is disappearing
Yes. When my kids wonder why I don't hate AI the way they do I tell them it's because I hate Google even more.

To be more precise, I hate the SEO shithole the internet has become, that Google serves up, that Google facilitated, indirectly created.

(I really don't have any tears to shed if there is a death of the Corporate Internet™.)

jononor | parent | next
AI seems to be on the same trajectory? Search was very useful in the start also, until it became entrenched. Then search placement became a target, and they are just focusing on extracting rents. All way paying the content providers zero or near-zero. And with years of that dynamic, we end up where we are now. It was the same with "social media". The same will happen with AI. AI is a power for more enshittification - being currently less shit than Google is (mosy likely) temporary.
zombot | root | parent
It's definitely temporary. Remember there are no ad blockers for LLMs.
quantummagic | root | parent
You're right, this is the best it will ever be. But there likely will be ad blockers for them -- local LLMs that filter for any brand placement, etc.
dualvariable | parent | next
They're probably going to figure out how to aggressively monetize and enshittify LLMs at some point.

We're likely at the "golden age" of LLM-assisted web searching and summarization.

Hopefully open models keep it cracked open, but expecting enshittification is always the safe bet these days.

badestrand | root | parent
For the free to use LLMs, for sure. But if I pay $20 monthly, why should they enshittify it?
Gigachad | root | parent | next
$20 a month is not nearly enough. The current finances require AI companies to make far more money than that to not implode.
archagon | root | parent | next
Because that’s what always happens? Because their raison d’etre is to squeeze you dry?
0x262d | root | parent | next
look at every paid streaming service...
Eisenstein | root | parent
The amount of money you pay is irrelevant if you don't leave the platform once they starting adding revenue streams that degrade your experience.
no-name-here | parent
Is there some search engine that you think could have become popular and not ended up with SEO optimization?
Melatonic | root | parent | next
One you pay for yourself !

Very happy with Kagi personally

no-name-here | root | parent
>> Is there some search engine that you think could have become popular and not ended up with SEO optimization?

> One you pay for yourself !

SEO is the practice done by webmasters of optimizing a website to improve its visibility and ranking in search engine results.

If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?

csnover | root | parent | next
I don’t agree with the parent that the solution for SEO spam is paying for the search engine (I think there are other good reasons to do this though), especially since people have been doing things like naming their company “AAA Auto Repair” to be first in the phone book since before computers ever existed. But the person you originally replied to does have a point in blaming Google for the problem. Most SEO spam sites make their money from ads, and Google are the ones who run the ad network, which means Google are the ones funding them and creating an incentive for them to exist.
| root | parent | next
{"deleted":true,"id":49254165,"parent":49253837,"time":1786430191,"type":"comment"}
Eisenstein | root | parent
> SEO is the practice done by webmasters of optimizing a website to improve its visibility and ranking in search engine results.

They do this because they benefit from their site being visited or the information they are providing being noticed.

> If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?

I see no reason it would have that effect. It does, however, create different incentives for the search provider to improve the signals indicating page relevance since the user is the priority instead of advertisers.

no-name-here | root | parent
Ah, the argument is that Google intentionally avoids showing you the most relevant results, or at least avoids "solving" the problem of webmasters who attempt to 'game' the system.

>>>> Is there some search engine that you think could have become popular and not ended up with SEO optimization?

>>> One you pay for yourself !

>> SEO is the practice done by webmasters of optimizing a website to improve its visibility and ranking in search engine results.

> They do this because they benefit from their site being visited or the information they are providing being noticed.

>> If you are paying to use your search engine, does that mean webmasters are no longer incentivized to/will not try to improve their visibility/ranking in your search results?

> I see no reason it would have that effect.

Agreed.

watwut | root | parent
Google did not really lost to optimization, they enshittified to make you spwnd more time on search (and see more ads)
no-name-here | root | parent
Ah, the argument is that Google intentionally avoids showing you the best results, so that you spend more time searching (and being exposed to ads)?
robinsonb5 | root | parent
I'd frame it more that Google is incentivised to show you the results which are most lucrative for them to display, rather than the ones which are most beneficial for you to see.
oblio | root | parent
Incentives. Which is why platforms (such as search) should never be allowed to be in the same company with things built on top of them (such as ads), if the combined company is significant for an important market.

We used to know better, Standard Oil vertical integration was dismantled.