• Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 minutes 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.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

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

  • rose56@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 hours ago

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

    • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      53 minutes ago

      Companies that can not be trusted to not add features their customers do not want can not be trusted to keep them disabled by default.

      If the door to AI exists, we, the users, do not trust the organization to keep it locked.

    • communism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

      On duckduckgo.com it’s unfortunately enabled by default though. You have to go out of your way to set your search browser to noai.duckduckgo.com if you want default AI disabled (which you’ll want on e.g. private browsing windows/any browser that autodeletes cookies when you close it). It’s extra hassle because most privacy web browsers use DDG by default, not the noai subdomain.

  • 58008@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    6 hours 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.

    • Sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Well, I don’t know about that.

      My swiss hoster just started offering AI and says that their AI infrastructure is 100 % powered by renewables and the waste heat is used for district heating.

      You could argue that LLM training in itself used so much energy that you’ll never be able to compensate for the damage, but I don’t know. 🤷

      • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        While good, you should always keep in mind that using renewables for this means that power can’t be used for other purposes, meaning the difference has to be covered by other sources of energy. Always bear in mind that these things don’t exist in a vaccum. The resources they use always mean resources aren’t used elsewhere. At worst this would mean that new clean power is built to power a waste, and then old dirty power has to be used for everything else, instead of being replaced by clean energy.

        • Demdaru@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          On the other hand…the same private entity wouldn’t buy the means to produce renewable power if they didn’t want to power their AI center. So in the ends, nothing changes, and the power couldn’t be used for other purposes because it simply wouldn’t be generated.

          However, as they did and are using it to promote themselves, they are influencing others to also adopt renewable energy policy in a way, no matter how small.

          No, normally I am not that optimistic, but I am trying ^^"

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    6 hours ago

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

    • Sockenklaus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 hours 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.

  • ominous ocelot@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    90%? Could be selection bias. I think, the result would be a different one if users would have been asked to in the Google AI tab.

    You need to fetch users from different places for your sample to get more meaningful results.

    • snail_hunter@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Wasn’t this a poll to determine how DDG will use AI in the future? I don’t believe it was meant to be representative of the general population.

      • ominous ocelot@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        determine how DDG will use AI in the future?

        In this regard it makes perfect sense. I guess it was just me who asked for the general population answer.

    • M137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Because the poll just ended… it’s been opt out since before the poll and nothing has changed, yet (if anything does change). How is this not obvious?

  • radio@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 hours 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%.