I find it is grounded in facts (based on the results) more and doesn’t typically make stuff up. I am usually using it for things I am more well versed in (web dev) so I have a baseline knowledge to draw from.
To be honest, I didn't find DuckDuckGo's AI on the top of their search to be very good anyway compared to the one Google has. However can't say I have cared much as typically if I am searching I don't want an AI response, otherwise I'd just go straight to an AI chat interface in the first place.
The Google one is personalized to use language and sources that you'd prefer. They're building an individual response for each person that is most suited to trick that person into clicking on their ads. For some people they dont care, but I myself dont want a digital clone of me tricking me into buying things.
Salesman have for a long time teaching new salesman to use NLP tricks like matching and mirroring to convince people you're relatable and trustworthy. Google is doing this with all the data they have on you.
Yeah for sure. When I was using Kagi for example, I had to be far more specific especially if I am looking for things that are more local such as local businesses. I personally don't mind having to do this and I knew when signing up for something like Kagi that it wasn't going to be able to use information it has tracked about me to give me these kinds of "better" search results. So at the end of the day there is a trade-off that has to be made for privacy. Sometimes I do throw the `!g` bang in there if I want to be redirected to Google in order to get those more localized/personal results and knowing I am trading off some privacy.
Yeah that does make sense, though I have found the DDG AI to give me some pretty misleading, incorrect, or just completely off answers which prompted me to throw the !g on the search to see what the Google AI would have given. I'm sure this is overall because of there being more training data, however I do think that is a good reason to simply not bother with the DDG AI. If the AI is going to provide mediocre or wrong answers a lot, then it seems better to just not have it.
Unfortunately I have seen far too many people, especially less tech savvy ones rely pretty heavily on the AI summaries provided by the search engines. And I think it can be a bit dangerous to have these results be super unreliable in what they state. The Google one also isn't perfect, but I've at least found it's a bit more accurate. However I personally don't really care for either. As I mentioned in my OP if I already made the choice to use a search engine, it's likely because I don't care for an AI response as I could open up Claude/ChatGPT or whatever's interface and ask the question there if I just wanted AI.
Yeah that is actually I think the biggest issue with search in general right now is that I feel like 50% or more of the search results I am getting are AI generated fake sites. Even worse is that sometimes they are malicious and pretending to be what you might be searching for. I personally would much rather companies spend money on AI tools that help filter out this kind of crap, versus investing it into AI summaries at the top of the search. Overtime the summaries are just going to end up being based on data crawled from AI generated slop sites.
You can find such accommodating customers if you listen to customers.
In most companies executives can bypass processes to make projects happen - when done well that allows long term investment to happen when the business case is too complex to reduce to an RoI - when done poorly you end up launching a lot of pet projects that have no market and never will. I feel uniquely positioned to have a good understanding of the maluses and benefits of authoritarian project creation from all three angles and the best solution I've seen is to let it happen but bring down the hammer if things get too absurd.
Remember the scene in "You got mail" where there are bunch of people who protest against big retailer and support the local bookstore but at the end of the day, they have no extra sales.
All these anti-Google, anti-facebook, anti-Instagram, anti-OpenAI, anti-Claude stories are exactly that. Provide copium and feel good for a handful of people for a few days.
I started to find that the AI bit was the most useful part of Google Search. But the actual search results were terrible and now I use Kagi. I like being able to add a question mark and control what becomes AI and what doesn't. I use normal search like a Ctrl F for the internet and don't want it to be too clever.
Yeah, gonna be honest. I ridiculed people for it before, but now I use Google's AI a lot. I haven't used Google in over a decade otherwise and I still don't. I use Brave for search but Google's AI is better than anyone else's for what I do. You heard it guys, I was wrong. I admit it.
Google's search AI caused a panic in my household just several nights ago. We were looking up an issue with our pet and the very first thing my partner saw searching google was an AI answer saying you need to panic, this is an emergency, get your animal to an emergency room asap before they die. That of course kicked her into Oh Shit mode. But aside from that answer none of the actual search results either of us were finding backed up the AI.
We had to decide whether or not to drag our pet to an after hours emergency vet, with all the associated stress and cost, or ignore the AI result and go off everything else we were reading. It's one thing to dismiss AI answers that seem wrong when it's a domain I know well or the stakes are low, but this was not that type of scenario.
In the end we opted to ignore google's AI and fortunately it was absolutely the right call. So, thanks google.
Google's AI is solid, but a lot of its benefit comes from the fact that it hasn't been enshittified into the ground like their search. The plain incontrovertible benefit is that it has the potential to reduce clicks from the user - instead of sending the UX through clicking into sites and then back to the main search pane the information is immediately available. That click through ends up being expensive for three main reasons 1 - the site is sometimes potato though google "solved" this with amp, 2 - it takes a while to scroll to the site entry passed all the sponsored links (a problem google created for themselves) and 3 - paywalls and "Please subscribe to our newsletter" popups are legion, but while this was always a little bit of a problem, it is a much more pronounced problem due to 1, the insertion of amp that threatens financial ruin on being crawled by google.
So, at the end of the day Google's AI is better than ye olde Google Search, and ye olde Google Search is now very difficult to accomplish because of how much Google has poisoned the well. Kagi is excellent but most normal people can't stomach paying for search when there's a "free" alternative so your options are Google's AI, Google's Search or and alternative search - most normal folks don't realize non-Google search alternatives exist (outside like Bing) so Google's AI ends up capturing a lot of usage.
My non-tech savvy mother started reading the stuff the Google Search AI answers to for some searches, and she's already fed up with it saying whatever. To her it doesn't matter that the "AI can make mistakes" because (in her own wording) "if it's faulty, don't answer".
There's a difference between "linking to a source that may be incorrect" and "you providing the text that's blatantly wrong", and Google seems too big to care about it.
Google only cares when something gains traction (and thus potentially hurts its bottom line". For example, it was answering "How many p's in Google" with "There are two p's in Google"[1] for long enough for me to get non-technical family members making a joke out of it. Google fixed it, only for it then to briefly tell you there were no p's in 'Alphabet' either.
Those particular bits on nonsense seem to have been stopped for now, but let's not fall prey to Gell-Mann amnesia. The only problem Google has fixed is "our LLM was hurting our reputation in this specific case". They have not, and likely cannot, fix the underlying problem.
That difference can be pretty small when most of the web is also consumed by low effort automatically generated slop. You can't escape it. I know there is a good web out there, but the search engines refuse to give it to me. Probably their algorithm. preferring recent content over good content.
I suspect the only real answer is an economic one, Something like Kagi, where hopefully by paying for results you change from being the product to a customer and this is incentive enough for them to provide good results.
I find that those "AI summaries" google tends to use by default, are hallucinating liars. I stopped wasting my time with this AI slop spam in general. Any "human" still using AI and targeting me, gets perma-banned without any further discussion. I kind of need ublock origin for EVERYTHING. (Ublock origin is great, but I need this on every level, blocking AI slop spam, blocking Nate's donation-daemon nag-widget for KDE and so forth - ok, the last one is easy to disable, just patching out the part where Nate thinks it is ok to harass people, but for AI slop spam from external sites I need something more effective than ublock origin, kind of like an ublock colossal shield.)
I find it takes me more time... sometimes it has the answer, often it has pure bullshit. I need to verify everything that comes out of it myself before repeating at anyway.
If people are just naked copy-pasting that field... which, ugh, of course they are... they are doing themselves and others a disservice.
Pretty wild to see this in a technology forum. The whole idea of technology is to do more with less. It inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable. Have you ever wondered how many livelihoods computer programmers have destroyed? Now that programming itself is on the chopping block, suddenly some moral line has been crossed?
> The whole idea of technology is to do more with less. It inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable
I don't think either of these sentences is true.
> Now that programming itself is on the chopping block, suddenly some moral line has been crossed?
I didn't say anything about a moral line, I just said that there are a lot of programmers who are very excited to remove themselves from being employable. I didn't even say whether I thought that was good or bad!
I think that a lot of those overly enthusiastic engineer AI fanboys are just playing a rational game driven by their perception that AI is a effective substitute for them, and that the only way to survive the comming culling is by being seen on the market as something an AI thought leader.
Basically, signalling that they are going to be cooperative subjects for the enemy's occupation of the land.
"I, for one, welcome our new giant insect overlords" is, IMHO, the operative meme here.
Others are just addicted, the cycle of fast interaction and reward in coding agents is not very different from gambling or crack cocaine.
I think the prevailing mindset amongst developers who use LLMs is that actually LLMs are more of an effective augmentation of programming tools in the same way that an IDE is, and the marketing angle comes from perceived demand for that augmented skill set.
Many developers even seem to predict an increase in demand in the medium to long term as AI written systems increasingly begin to need human attention.
I think the hyper enthusiastic ones are more vocal, but there's a quieter and larger group who are somewhat more measured about it.
Yes, I am addicted to food and shelter and to being able to work in the profession that I specialized in and spent years learning to do well. Without these things I would literally die.
People need to be independently rich, or be extremelly frugal to not care about the hypothetical obsolescence of their jobs.
What the fuck do you expect? That people just cheer a brave new world of diminishing salaries and disappearing jobs along with some vague promises that every thing will be alright?
Yes, I absolutely do expect computer programmers to cheer as the brave new world they helped create is ushered in.
How many people here got rich by automating away the jobs of others? I mean, what is this? Others are fair game, but programming is sacred? That's quite simply the peak of absurdity.
I've noticed a lot of weaselly statistics associated with AI adoption.
Company replaces phone support with AI chatbot, then says "Call center interactions dropped 80%! People must really love our AI bot," even though they were given no other choice.
AI features are popular in the sense that people are using it. I think the popularity lessens when asked if people want these features.
My point being that people who visit chatgpt.com/claude.com/etc by their own free will are not the same as people who now have to use AI summaries on Google because they are just showing up there and making the ten blue links harder to find.
That’s pretty much it. I have ai in my tracker, ai in my search engine, ai in my team chat, ai in the os (work computer),… I’ve never asked for it, but I bet I’m being counted as one of those users.
I don't think you understand that there's a difference between a user who wants an AI chatbot and a user who wants to perform a web search, and even if they're the exact same user, they expect for a web search to operate like a web search and not like a chatbot.
I don't think anyone who works in product management at any company in 2026 understands this, so you're not alone.
Bluesky is insufferable. Literally any issue in any program is labelled "#vibecoded" by these clearly genius-level engineers who've never shipped a bug.
I've weirdly found that I like the Google AI mode in specific cases, and I find that the hybrid is the worst of the two worlds. There are some cases where I don't know exactly what I'm looking for and I want the AI to curate results. In other cases, I know what I'm looking for and I want to read the OG source.
The AI popup is the worst and will hallucinate answers from Reddit comments. I specifically had it ask me a nonsense question which was literally just someone's Reddit comment suggesting a follow-on topic B to the search topic A. The AI mode will _sometimes_ be useful enough to prompt into doing the search and summarization for me and get me just enough info and some links to continue the work myself.
You have to ask: Why is Google pushing the AI results? You would think that this would impact their ad revenue. Since Google is fundamentally an ad company, this deserves a closer look.
My suspicion - for which I have no proof - is this: With search results, Google marks the ads. The marking has gotten ever more subtle over the years, but it's there. If you want to avoid clicking on ads, you can. With AI, Google wants to integrate ads seamlessly into the results. If you search for widgets, and Acme Corp. has paid Google enough, the AI summary will praise the virtues of Acme's widgets. And the user will have no idea that this is paid placement, instead of a summary of product reviews, etc..
The simple answer is due to popular demand. I remember when people were doom-posting about how chat GPT was making google obsolete before Google introduced AI summaries, and no one has been saying that after Google introduced it.
There's an entirely valid concern about losing traffic to a competitor, but that doesn't make it logical to drop the old product some people still clearly prefer.
Like many companies, they seem strangely determined to force AI on customers, even if it costs them money.
I think a lot of people aren't actually against AI itself. Personally I just want to choose when I need a chatbot and when I want a normal list of links. Over the last few years, that line has started getting pretty blurry
> Please note: we are aware some of our advanced syntax isn't operating 100% correctly on all queries and are actively working on it. It is unfortunately a non-trivial issue given we get our private results from a variety of sources.
My issue with DDG AI result is that sometimes I would accidentally hit the "more" button to expand the result and it would begin a painfully slow crawl of text that pushed the results I was actually interested in further and further down the page. It was usually preferable to refresh rather than wait. So this is a welcome change.
Unfortunately DDG is still horrible for non-English results. As are most "smaller" search engines. I rotate through them every now and then to try. Is there a meta search engine that uses country specific engines depending on searches anyone can recommend?
I switched to DDG search three months ago, and unfortunately it's much inferior to Google. Maybe I've subconsciously optimized my queries for Google these past 20 years and need to rethink how to query using DDG, though.
I will say it's nice to have them actually honour keywords in searches that google has made harder and harder to discover and seems to ignore at will (inurl: site: etc)
The funniest one for me in google is +"foo" they decided people didn't actually mean it, so they changed it to +""foo"" - then when we all started doing that, they made the new secret "yes I really want that string" to be +"""foo"""
The logical business opportunity in the current LLM-boom is to create a bunch of AI-less services and products, and then charge money to access them.
Think of premium branding analogy: masses get cheap AI slop, wealthy get high quality human-curated and human-created produce. Like organic vs regular food.
This only works if your business is large enough that you and all your competitors aren't expected to have humans doing everything already, but small enough that going AI won't boost your valuation by much. My intuition is that the intersection is pretty much empty.
Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism touches on this concept, where there's a constantly shifting opposition to the market that itself becomes engulfed in its own market, to be advertised.
So for example all the productivity/digital detox channels and videos are themselves a consumer demand to be watched on YouTube, on phones. And now we have anti-AI products marking themselves higher for a feature that didn't previously exist. It's like the tree of capital gets split at every turn.
I switched to duckduckgo last week and i am really loving it. I tried their browser but I was getting a lot of 'this browswer is no longer supported messages'. I think I will try brave next.
I've been liking the Brave browser. The only thing I dislike is how many damn Cloudflare captcha's I have to go through all across the web. However in a way this may actually be a feature as I believe it shows that Brave's fingerprinting protections are actually effective. I didn't get these on other browsers as they were likely very easily fingerprinted.
I did have one site which told me I needed to use Chrome, Edge, or Firefox to use their site. Which kind of made me laugh considering the engine Brave uses. It was a really interactive JS heavy training site, so I guess they really wanted to be sure the browser was compatible to avoid support issues.
Interesting. I hid the Ask Leo button eons ago when it showed up, so I never feel an "AI encroach."
That being said, I've used "Ask Leo" a handful of time, with mixed results. It's really good for "Give me the TLDR" or "Find the part of the page that talks about X".
If you're on macOS, take a look at Orion from the team behind Kagi Search. It runs on WebKit, is really light on battery usage, doesn't come bundled with crypto stuff or AI agents, and still supports Chrome and Firefox extensions natively
I just stopped paying for Kagi as I personally found I stopped using search as much now that I am paying for an AI chatbot. So I have now switched to using DDG. I personally think Kagi did often have better results. I sometimes find myself adding the `!g` bang to my search so I can get the Google search results as sometimes DDG lets me down. I didn't do this much at all when I was using Kagi.
But this is also just my anecdotal experience and I haven't been on DDG for long yet since Kagi, so my perspective may not be proper yet.
I find DDG results to be lower quality than Kagi, have never liked Bing's index. I also frequently use the personalized site rankings feature in Kagi to strip out known junky sites
Far worse, in my experience. DDG was my first attempt to switch off Google, but the results just weren't very good and I frequently had to use the !g query option to get good results. With Kagi, I consistently get better results than Google.
> Since then, traffic to DuckDuckGo has been booming. Last week, the company noted that web visits to its no-AI search page were up nearly 30% week-over-week, and its U.S. app installs were also up 18.1% week-over-week, with U.S. iOS app installs peaking at 69.9% week-over-week growth.
Of course there are no absolute numbers or scale. This is just an advertisement for DuckDuckGo. It's gross that previously respected tech publications run this kind of slop for clicks
DDG used to have a graph showing the number of queries they did daily. It was around 100 million searches a day before they removed it a few years back. They were receiving bad press at the time IIRC.
An educated guess is they're doing a similar number of searches today.
DDG would be a lot better if lite.duckduckgo.com didn't automatically block anyone who looks deeper than 200 search results as a bot and then force a JS only challenge on the lite page (that crashes old browsers). I think this false positive could be solved by DDG lite returning more than 10 results per page.
Huh. Didn't know there were 2 non-JS interfaces. I get redirected to https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/ (which is also 10 per page).
I do appreciate that DDG has it at all. Google blocks all non-JS searches these days.
I've never noticed the challenge, but then, I don't think I've ever clicked 20 pages into the search results either. Usually if I've clicked on a couple of pages I feel it's time to refine my query..
So, Google killing off google search, is probably the number #1 reason for DuckDuckGo growing - that and how AI ruins everything now.
Unfortunately, whenever I used DuckDuckGo, the search results were also crap - and the User Interface was crap too. For some reason these web-searches suck, from A to Z, starting at the UI, but more importantly showing search "results" that are really qualitatively not good or inclusive. We already HAD good results - Google search used to be usable, then Google killed it off deliberately. Some inspiration Google appears to have taken from youtube, where you can search for "xyz", and it shows you "abc" instead after a while, which is horrible but not totally horrible as you may just watch another video. But for exact text search, copying that was stupid. Google ruined its search engine deliberately over several years, hoping that people will never notice it. And now we should use this crap AI garbage "search"? That is a privatized web. I refuse to help transition to private actors controlling the www. For similar reasons I do not use AMP and recommend everyone to not fall for the trap Google puts at you.
Either way, someone can hopefully tell the DuckDuckGo team to offer alternatives that do not suck in their search engine. (Qwant also sucks, by the way - they just copy/pasted Google's search UI; perhaps some people want it, I don't. I want oldschool search. Simple. Stay simple. Don't clutter the UI. Don't add garbage. Don't lie to the user. And so forth.)
You get an "Auto-Generated" "Search Assist" summary at the top of most searches. So... they're using AI, you can just hide the summary. So, the "Ai is not the default" claim is bullshit, and I'm now less trusting of duckduckgo if they're willing to pretend their 'no AI' angle is substantial. 30% increase on the noai.duckduckgo.com subdomain. I wonder what % that is of their total traffic? Can I guess <5%?
Techcrunch mentions this in the last paragraph.
Nice marketing I guess? If techcrunch would lead with pointing out this is just marketing and they're totally an AI company, this article would count as journalism.
Honest question: Are people this stupid? Are techcrunch reporters this credulous and uncritical? I am genuinely completely on board with replacing this kind of 'journalism' with AI summaries of PR releases rather than gild them with fading gleam of actual journalism.
I've been building information extraction and discourse analysis tools for exactly this reason: most 'journalism' is lower effort than a the AI summaries they're complaining about.
"AI is not the default" is not a claim made anywhere AFAICT, especially not with that wording. The only thing you could be referring to is the explicitly no-ai url, which AFAICT has no "Auto-Generated" "Search Assist" (that's kinda the point), and it also hasn't used that phrase ever that I've seen in months.
So I kinda feel I have to ask: did you read the article, or did you read an AI summary?
Edit: I know how to turn off the goddamn AI that’s not the point
I've used DDG as my primary search and it was maddening when they put that stupid AI response thing in there last year because it was not helpful and I'm a huge advocate of AI
Been a DDG user for about a decade, ever since I stopped using Google search.
Click the gear on the Search Assist box, and click the bottom option that says "Never". Right beneath it, it says: "Completely disables Search Assist".
It's always been easy to avoid DDG's AI, which was the point of my comment.
There is a very prominent "show always / show on demand / disable completely" button, which you can choose and is respected indefinitely from that point on. That's orders of magnitude better than anything else, and really the best you can do short of refusing to use any AI at all.
Why in general? Because if you don't read the article, you run a strong risk of reacting to things that the article didn't actually say. See OP for a good example.
Why this OP specifically? Because he is strongly reacting to the article's claim that "Ai is not the default" ... which is not stated or implied by the article he's replying to.
The article is a useful bulletin that DDG has a "no AI" function, previously accessible via a URL and now through extensions as well. OP is acting like DDG is claiming to be an anti-AI company, based on nothing stated in the article.
It's just that people have different understanding of the world and assuming something is self evident is dangerous. For instance the problem here is the apparent disconnection between the comment and the article, but maybe it's just that the connection isn't evident to you.
Take this response to a comment of mine for instance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48144461. I've read the article and someone thought I didn't because he didn't see the connection I saw and acted all righteously, almost as this threads OP.
So in order to avoid embarrassing yourself online it's always nice to first give people the benefit of the doubt and then avoid being sneaky and clever when communication what you want.
I don't owe the benefit of the doubt to a comment that says "this is just marketing" and "are people this stupid?". If OP is going to make dismissive, vitriolic comments like that, he should probably make sure that the article is actually saying anything like what he claims.
Maybe I’m a wierdo but I actually like the Brave version of their Search + AI solution: https://search.brave.com/ask
After switching between Perplexity, Phind, and a couple others, it seems like the best balance for my use.
You can always just use the regular Brave search. It does seem to include an AI summary by default, but you can turn that off: https://search.brave.com/settings#:~:text=Make%20AI%2Dpowere...
I find it is grounded in facts (based on the results) more and doesn’t typically make stuff up. I am usually using it for things I am more well versed in (web dev) so I have a baseline knowledge to draw from.
To be honest, I didn't find DuckDuckGo's AI on the top of their search to be very good anyway compared to the one Google has. However can't say I have cared much as typically if I am searching I don't want an AI response, otherwise I'd just go straight to an AI chat interface in the first place.
The Google one is personalized to use language and sources that you'd prefer. They're building an individual response for each person that is most suited to trick that person into clicking on their ads. For some people they dont care, but I myself dont want a digital clone of me tricking me into buying things.
Salesman have for a long time teaching new salesman to use NLP tricks like matching and mirroring to convince people you're relatable and trustworthy. Google is doing this with all the data they have on you.
Yeah for sure. When I was using Kagi for example, I had to be far more specific especially if I am looking for things that are more local such as local businesses. I personally don't mind having to do this and I knew when signing up for something like Kagi that it wasn't going to be able to use information it has tracked about me to give me these kinds of "better" search results. So at the end of the day there is a trade-off that has to be made for privacy. Sometimes I do throw the `!g` bang in there if I want to be redirected to Google in order to get those more localized/personal results and knowing I am trading off some privacy.
Biggest problem is that google has a near exclusive deal with reddit, so all other search engines have old reddit results [1].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41057033
Yeah that does make sense, though I have found the DDG AI to give me some pretty misleading, incorrect, or just completely off answers which prompted me to throw the !g on the search to see what the Google AI would have given. I'm sure this is overall because of there being more training data, however I do think that is a good reason to simply not bother with the DDG AI. If the AI is going to provide mediocre or wrong answers a lot, then it seems better to just not have it.
Unfortunately I have seen far too many people, especially less tech savvy ones rely pretty heavily on the AI summaries provided by the search engines. And I think it can be a bit dangerous to have these results be super unreliable in what they state. The Google one also isn't perfect, but I've at least found it's a bit more accurate. However I personally don't really care for either. As I mentioned in my OP if I already made the choice to use a search engine, it's likely because I don't care for an AI response as I could open up Claude/ChatGPT or whatever's interface and ask the question there if I just wanted AI.
Me too. Hopefully future iterations of this service will remove or at least penalize ai generated websites, especially blogspam.
Yeah that is actually I think the biggest issue with search in general right now is that I feel like 50% or more of the search results I am getting are AI generated fake sites. Even worse is that sometimes they are malicious and pretending to be what you might be searching for. I personally would much rather companies spend money on AI tools that help filter out this kind of crap, versus investing it into AI summaries at the top of the search. Overtime the summaries are just going to end up being based on data crawled from AI generated slop sites.
"Wait, we're getting an influx of new users, and they actively don't want us to run the most expensive part of our search results page?"
Where can I find such accommodating customers myself?
You can find such accommodating customers if you listen to customers.
In most companies executives can bypass processes to make projects happen - when done well that allows long term investment to happen when the business case is too complex to reduce to an RoI - when done poorly you end up launching a lot of pet projects that have no market and never will. I feel uniquely positioned to have a good understanding of the maluses and benefits of authoritarian project creation from all three angles and the best solution I've seen is to let it happen but bring down the hammer if things get too absurd.
Remember the scene in "You got mail" where there are bunch of people who protest against big retailer and support the local bookstore but at the end of the day, they have no extra sales.
All these anti-Google, anti-facebook, anti-Instagram, anti-OpenAI, anti-Claude stories are exactly that. Provide copium and feel good for a handful of people for a few days.
But the reality is that DDG has had an influx of users, and You've Got Mail was a work of fiction.
Pretty much everywhere. AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.
I started to find that the AI bit was the most useful part of Google Search. But the actual search results were terrible and now I use Kagi. I like being able to add a question mark and control what becomes AI and what doesn't. I use normal search like a Ctrl F for the internet and don't want it to be too clever.
Yeah, gonna be honest. I ridiculed people for it before, but now I use Google's AI a lot. I haven't used Google in over a decade otherwise and I still don't. I use Brave for search but Google's AI is better than anyone else's for what I do. You heard it guys, I was wrong. I admit it.
Google's search AI caused a panic in my household just several nights ago. We were looking up an issue with our pet and the very first thing my partner saw searching google was an AI answer saying you need to panic, this is an emergency, get your animal to an emergency room asap before they die. That of course kicked her into Oh Shit mode. But aside from that answer none of the actual search results either of us were finding backed up the AI.
We had to decide whether or not to drag our pet to an after hours emergency vet, with all the associated stress and cost, or ignore the AI result and go off everything else we were reading. It's one thing to dismiss AI answers that seem wrong when it's a domain I know well or the stakes are low, but this was not that type of scenario.
In the end we opted to ignore google's AI and fortunately it was absolutely the right call. So, thanks google.
This is fascinating, contrarian viewpoints are rare, so can you elaborate?
Google's AI is solid, but a lot of its benefit comes from the fact that it hasn't been enshittified into the ground like their search. The plain incontrovertible benefit is that it has the potential to reduce clicks from the user - instead of sending the UX through clicking into sites and then back to the main search pane the information is immediately available. That click through ends up being expensive for three main reasons 1 - the site is sometimes potato though google "solved" this with amp, 2 - it takes a while to scroll to the site entry passed all the sponsored links (a problem google created for themselves) and 3 - paywalls and "Please subscribe to our newsletter" popups are legion, but while this was always a little bit of a problem, it is a much more pronounced problem due to 1, the insertion of amp that threatens financial ruin on being crawled by google.
So, at the end of the day Google's AI is better than ye olde Google Search, and ye olde Google Search is now very difficult to accomplish because of how much Google has poisoned the well. Kagi is excellent but most normal people can't stomach paying for search when there's a "free" alternative so your options are Google's AI, Google's Search or and alternative search - most normal folks don't realize non-Google search alternatives exist (outside like Bing) so Google's AI ends up capturing a lot of usage.
My non-tech savvy mother started reading the stuff the Google Search AI answers to for some searches, and she's already fed up with it saying whatever. To her it doesn't matter that the "AI can make mistakes" because (in her own wording) "if it's faulty, don't answer".
There's a difference between "linking to a source that may be incorrect" and "you providing the text that's blatantly wrong", and Google seems too big to care about it.
Google only cares when something gains traction (and thus potentially hurts its bottom line". For example, it was answering "How many p's in Google" with "There are two p's in Google"[1] for long enough for me to get non-technical family members making a joke out of it. Google fixed it, only for it then to briefly tell you there were no p's in 'Alphabet' either.
Those particular bits on nonsense seem to have been stopped for now, but let's not fall prey to Gell-Mann amnesia. The only problem Google has fixed is "our LLM was hurting our reputation in this specific case". They have not, and likely cannot, fix the underlying problem.
1. https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/27/why-googles-ai-cant-spell-...
That difference can be pretty small when most of the web is also consumed by low effort automatically generated slop. You can't escape it. I know there is a good web out there, but the search engines refuse to give it to me. Probably their algorithm. preferring recent content over good content.
I suspect the only real answer is an economic one, Something like Kagi, where hopefully by paying for results you change from being the product to a customer and this is incentive enough for them to provide good results.
Yeah. AI slop is lying to people. When I realised that I disabled it. Thankfully there are browser extensions that do that easily.
People call it hallucinating. I think it is lying. Google etc.. became a huge liar. All those AI slop companies are lying to the people now.
AI was ever useful for searching stuff?
I find that those "AI summaries" google tends to use by default, are hallucinating liars. I stopped wasting my time with this AI slop spam in general. Any "human" still using AI and targeting me, gets perma-banned without any further discussion. I kind of need ublock origin for EVERYTHING. (Ublock origin is great, but I need this on every level, blocking AI slop spam, blocking Nate's donation-daemon nag-widget for KDE and so forth - ok, the last one is easy to disable, just patching out the part where Nate thinks it is ok to harass people, but for AI slop spam from external sites I need something more effective than ublock origin, kind of like an ublock colossal shield.)
> But the actual search results were terrible
I think it's reasonable to assume that Google artificially nerfed its search engine before they pushed so massively for AI.
Google search already had a huge quality slide before 2022.
I find it takes me more time... sometimes it has the answer, often it has pure bullshit. I need to verify everything that comes out of it myself before repeating at anyway.
If people are just naked copy-pasting that field... which, ugh, of course they are... they are doing themselves and others a disservice.
Hey, don't forget about all the programmers who are excited to help destroy their own livelihoods for no extra compensation.
Pretty wild to see this in a technology forum. The whole idea of technology is to do more with less. It inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable. Have you ever wondered how many livelihoods computer programmers have destroyed? Now that programming itself is on the chopping block, suddenly some moral line has been crossed?
> The whole idea of technology is to do more with less. It inherently reduces the set of people who are still economically valuable
I don't think either of these sentences is true.
> Now that programming itself is on the chopping block, suddenly some moral line has been crossed?
I didn't say anything about a moral line, I just said that there are a lot of programmers who are very excited to remove themselves from being employable. I didn't even say whether I thought that was good or bad!
I think that a lot of those overly enthusiastic engineer AI fanboys are just playing a rational game driven by their perception that AI is a effective substitute for them, and that the only way to survive the comming culling is by being seen on the market as something an AI thought leader.
Basically, signalling that they are going to be cooperative subjects for the enemy's occupation of the land.
"I, for one, welcome our new giant insect overlords" is, IMHO, the operative meme here.
Others are just addicted, the cycle of fast interaction and reward in coding agents is not very different from gambling or crack cocaine.
I think the prevailing mindset amongst developers who use LLMs is that actually LLMs are more of an effective augmentation of programming tools in the same way that an IDE is, and the marketing angle comes from perceived demand for that augmented skill set.
Many developers even seem to predict an increase in demand in the medium to long term as AI written systems increasingly begin to need human attention.
I think the hyper enthusiastic ones are more vocal, but there's a quieter and larger group who are somewhat more measured about it.
I like how everyone on HN feels entitled to a profession that hasn't even existed for 100 years and that is constantly changing. Talk about addiction.
Yes, I am addicted to food and shelter and to being able to work in the profession that I specialized in and spent years learning to do well. Without these things I would literally die.
People need to be independently rich, or be extremelly frugal to not care about the hypothetical obsolescence of their jobs.
What the fuck do you expect? That people just cheer a brave new world of diminishing salaries and disappearing jobs along with some vague promises that every thing will be alright?
Yes, I absolutely do expect computer programmers to cheer as the brave new world they helped create is ushered in.
How many people here got rich by automating away the jobs of others? I mean, what is this? Others are fair game, but programming is sacred? That's quite simply the peak of absurdity.
The rational game here is extremely straightforward, and even has big names like "prisoner's dilemma" behind it:
Unionize.
chatgpt alone had like ~900 million weekly active users last i checked.
thats a lot of c-suites
(or the anti-ai crowd is more vocal than the occasional chatgpt user)
Theres a difference between users seeking out AI, and PMs cramming AI into previously existing products.
i obviously agree that those are two different things.
but its also obviously not true that "AI is only popular with AI providers and delusional C-suites.
I've noticed a lot of weaselly statistics associated with AI adoption.
Company replaces phone support with AI chatbot, then says "Call center interactions dropped 80%! People must really love our AI bot," even though they were given no other choice.
AI features are popular in the sense that people are using it. I think the popularity lessens when asked if people want these features.
My point being that people who visit chatgpt.com/claude.com/etc by their own free will are not the same as people who now have to use AI summaries on Google because they are just showing up there and making the ten blue links harder to find.
That’s pretty much it. I have ai in my tracker, ai in my search engine, ai in my team chat, ai in the os (work computer),… I’ve never asked for it, but I bet I’m being counted as one of those users.
they have 50MM non-business subscribers, if that’s a better metric for you. and that’s just one ai company - not counting the others or local models.
i hate unsolicited ai in my software as much as the next guy. but it’s silly to claim ai isn’t popular just because you don’t like it.
anything else with 50MM subscribers would reasonably be called “popular”.
A lot of people who are fed up with AI use ChatGPT. Being fed up with something doesn't necessarily mean they start pretending it doesn't exist.
Furthermore, where did that number come from? What does "active" mean? What does "user" mean?
>Furthermore, where did that number come from? What does "active" mean? What does "user" mean?
https://openai.com/index/scaling-ai-for-everyone/
weekly and monthly active users are common industry terms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_users
I use ChatGPT on occasion for certain tasks. But when I'm doing a web search, I want a web search without AI.
same!
my comment is not in support of google's ai search. or ai in general.
just pushing back on "ai is not popular", because it is obviously popular by any reasonable metric.
I don't think you understand that there's a difference between a user who wants an AI chatbot and a user who wants to perform a web search, and even if they're the exact same user, they expect for a web search to operate like a web search and not like a chatbot.
I don't think anyone who works in product management at any company in 2026 understands this, so you're not alone.
my comment is literally only pushing back on the claim of "ai is not popular".
by any reasonable metric, ai is popular. that doesn't change just because you super-duper hate it.
your insistence that i dont understand something unrelated to the point of my comment is weird.
Anecdote: Most of the anti-AI sentiment I hear is from internet communities like BlueSky. I don't find this generalizable.
Bluesky is insufferable. Literally any issue in any program is labelled "#vibecoded" by these clearly genius-level engineers who've never shipped a bug.
Seems like AI is the Ozempic of tech. IE token generation keeps soaring, yet if you ask any individual- many swear they aren't touching it.
The only delusion here is your comment. Claude and ChatGPT are extremely popular across millions of active daily users.
You're not wrong. I'm forever cleaning up the turds they leave everywhere.
I've weirdly found that I like the Google AI mode in specific cases, and I find that the hybrid is the worst of the two worlds. There are some cases where I don't know exactly what I'm looking for and I want the AI to curate results. In other cases, I know what I'm looking for and I want to read the OG source.
The AI popup is the worst and will hallucinate answers from Reddit comments. I specifically had it ask me a nonsense question which was literally just someone's Reddit comment suggesting a follow-on topic B to the search topic A. The AI mode will _sometimes_ be useful enough to prompt into doing the search and summarization for me and get me just enough info and some links to continue the work myself.
You have to ask: Why is Google pushing the AI results? You would think that this would impact their ad revenue. Since Google is fundamentally an ad company, this deserves a closer look.
My suspicion - for which I have no proof - is this: With search results, Google marks the ads. The marking has gotten ever more subtle over the years, but it's there. If you want to avoid clicking on ads, you can. With AI, Google wants to integrate ads seamlessly into the results. If you search for widgets, and Acme Corp. has paid Google enough, the AI summary will praise the virtues of Acme's widgets. And the user will have no idea that this is paid placement, instead of a summary of product reviews, etc..
The simple answer is due to popular demand. I remember when people were doom-posting about how chat GPT was making google obsolete before Google introduced AI summaries, and no one has been saying that after Google introduced it.
There's an entirely valid concern about losing traffic to a competitor, but that doesn't make it logical to drop the old product some people still clearly prefer.
Like many companies, they seem strangely determined to force AI on customers, even if it costs them money.
The answer is simple.
“If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will.” - Steve Jobs
Kagi is still by far the best results for me, particularly for engineering content and worth every dollar.
DuckDuckGo results are even more frustrating than the currently-terrible version of Google for finding good information IMO.
I think a lot of people aren't actually against AI itself. Personally I just want to choose when I need a chatbot and when I want a normal list of links. Over the last few years, that line has started getting pretty blurry
> Over the last few years, that line has started getting pretty blurry
Is that because every page you land on these days is just AI slop?
DDG has been my daily driver for more than a decade now and I could not be more pleased.
Better privacy, good results, no drama, first search engine to include bangs, and its free!
I've been using DDG for years and it's at least as good as Google for most general use. I still keep it set as the default search engine.
For some context sensitive searches where words overlap with more common topics I have a Kagi subscription.
Does DuckDuckGo support -not_wanted_word syntax? I tried to use it with -shop or -pharmacy and it still gave me unwanted results
It does: https://duckduckgo.com/duckduckgo-help-pages/results/syntax
But I guess sometimes it doesn't work??
> Please note: we are aware some of our advanced syntax isn't operating 100% correctly on all queries and are actively working on it. It is unfortunately a non-trivial issue given we get our private results from a variety of sources.
My issue with DDG AI result is that sometimes I would accidentally hit the "more" button to expand the result and it would begin a painfully slow crawl of text that pushed the results I was actually interested in further and further down the page. It was usually preferable to refresh rather than wait. So this is a welcome change.
The "More" button changes to a "Stop" button when clicked.
Been using DDG now for years since I noticed a few years back already that its search results were at least equal, if not superior, to G00$le.
"&udm=14" still works on google.
Since google got as bad as bing, it doesn't matter anymore and ddg is fine (afaik still the main source). This is just a plus.
Unfortunately DDG is still horrible for non-English results. As are most "smaller" search engines. I rotate through them every now and then to try. Is there a meta search engine that uses country specific engines depending on searches anyone can recommend?
I personally switched to DDG months ago when Google opted me into AI search against my will.
I switched to DDG search three months ago, and unfortunately it's much inferior to Google. Maybe I've subconsciously optimized my queries for Google these past 20 years and need to rethink how to query using DDG, though.
I will say it's nice to have them actually honour keywords in searches that google has made harder and harder to discover and seems to ignore at will (inurl: site: etc)
The funniest one for me in google is +"foo" they decided people didn't actually mean it, so they changed it to +""foo"" - then when we all started doing that, they made the new secret "yes I really want that string" to be +"""foo"""
Try kagi :)
The logical business opportunity in the current LLM-boom is to create a bunch of AI-less services and products, and then charge money to access them.
Think of premium branding analogy: masses get cheap AI slop, wealthy get high quality human-curated and human-created produce. Like organic vs regular food.
This only works if your business is large enough that you and all your competitors aren't expected to have humans doing everything already, but small enough that going AI won't boost your valuation by much. My intuition is that the intersection is pretty much empty.
Who says "valuation"? I am talking about "profits", something that none of the the upcoming IPO debutantes have managed to achieve.
Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism touches on this concept, where there's a constantly shifting opposition to the market that itself becomes engulfed in its own market, to be advertised.
So for example all the productivity/digital detox channels and videos are themselves a consumer demand to be watched on YouTube, on phones. And now we have anti-AI products marking themselves higher for a feature that didn't previously exist. It's like the tree of capital gets split at every turn.
This is sad and dystopian, why don't companies instead make AI optional in their products?
Among IT giants, Apple is the only such option.
I would be way happier with the old site-specific excepts and no AI on the search results, but the AI page still a click away like it's today.
DDG today has two search options, IMO, both could get some improvement.
I switched to duckduckgo last week and i am really loving it. I tried their browser but I was getting a lot of 'this browswer is no longer supported messages'. I think I will try brave next.
I've been liking the Brave browser. The only thing I dislike is how many damn Cloudflare captcha's I have to go through all across the web. However in a way this may actually be a feature as I believe it shows that Brave's fingerprinting protections are actually effective. I didn't get these on other browsers as they were likely very easily fingerprinted.
I did have one site which told me I needed to use Chrome, Edge, or Firefox to use their site. Which kind of made me laugh considering the engine Brave uses. It was a really interactive JS heavy training site, so I guess they really wanted to be sure the browser was compatible to avoid support issues.
If you're looking for a no-AI vibe from your browser, you probably won't get it from Brave. Zen might be a better fit.
If you're just trying new browsers to see what's out there and clean, I've really liked Orion.
Thanks for the advice I will check them out.
Interesting. I hid the Ask Leo button eons ago when it showed up, so I never feel an "AI encroach."
That being said, I've used "Ask Leo" a handful of time, with mixed results. It's really good for "Give me the TLDR" or "Find the part of the page that talks about X".
If you're on macOS, take a look at Orion from the team behind Kagi Search. It runs on WebKit, is really light on battery usage, doesn't come bundled with crypto stuff or AI agents, and still supports Chrome and Firefox extensions natively
Ironic to me as the only DDG thing I use anymore is their duck.ai service
Anyone with experience know how DuckDuckGo compares to Kagi in terms of quality of search results?
I just stopped paying for Kagi as I personally found I stopped using search as much now that I am paying for an AI chatbot. So I have now switched to using DDG. I personally think Kagi did often have better results. I sometimes find myself adding the `!g` bang to my search so I can get the Google search results as sometimes DDG lets me down. I didn't do this much at all when I was using Kagi.
But this is also just my anecdotal experience and I haven't been on DDG for long yet since Kagi, so my perspective may not be proper yet.
I find DDG results to be lower quality than Kagi, have never liked Bing's index. I also frequently use the personalized site rankings feature in Kagi to strip out known junky sites
Far worse, in my experience. DDG was my first attempt to switch off Google, but the results just weren't very good and I frequently had to use the !g query option to get good results. With Kagi, I consistently get better results than Google.
It's very similar to kagi in that it only ever allows you to see 200 results per query.
> Since then, traffic to DuckDuckGo has been booming. Last week, the company noted that web visits to its no-AI search page were up nearly 30% week-over-week, and its U.S. app installs were also up 18.1% week-over-week, with U.S. iOS app installs peaking at 69.9% week-over-week growth.
Of course there are no absolute numbers or scale. This is just an advertisement for DuckDuckGo. It's gross that previously respected tech publications run this kind of slop for clicks
DDG used to have a graph showing the number of queries they did daily. It was around 100 million searches a day before they removed it a few years back. They were receiving bad press at the time IIRC.
An educated guess is they're doing a similar number of searches today.
Related:
DuckDuckGo search saw 28% more visits after Google said people love AI mode
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48296649
DDG would be a lot better if lite.duckduckgo.com didn't automatically block anyone who looks deeper than 200 search results as a bot and then force a JS only challenge on the lite page (that crashes old browsers). I think this false positive could be solved by DDG lite returning more than 10 results per page.
Huh. Didn't know there were 2 non-JS interfaces. I get redirected to https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/ (which is also 10 per page). I do appreciate that DDG has it at all. Google blocks all non-JS searches these days.
I've never noticed the challenge, but then, I don't think I've ever clicked 20 pages into the search results either. Usually if I've clicked on a couple of pages I feel it's time to refine my query..
So, Google killing off google search, is probably the number #1 reason for DuckDuckGo growing - that and how AI ruins everything now.
Unfortunately, whenever I used DuckDuckGo, the search results were also crap - and the User Interface was crap too. For some reason these web-searches suck, from A to Z, starting at the UI, but more importantly showing search "results" that are really qualitatively not good or inclusive. We already HAD good results - Google search used to be usable, then Google killed it off deliberately. Some inspiration Google appears to have taken from youtube, where you can search for "xyz", and it shows you "abc" instead after a while, which is horrible but not totally horrible as you may just watch another video. But for exact text search, copying that was stupid. Google ruined its search engine deliberately over several years, hoping that people will never notice it. And now we should use this crap AI garbage "search"? That is a privatized web. I refuse to help transition to private actors controlling the www. For similar reasons I do not use AMP and recommend everyone to not fall for the trap Google puts at you.
Either way, someone can hopefully tell the DuckDuckGo team to offer alternatives that do not suck in their search engine. (Qwant also sucks, by the way - they just copy/pasted Google's search UI; perhaps some people want it, I don't. I want oldschool search. Simple. Stay simple. Don't clutter the UI. Don't add garbage. Don't lie to the user. And so forth.)
I use duckduckgo but...
This is just marketing.
You get an "Auto-Generated" "Search Assist" summary at the top of most searches. So... they're using AI, you can just hide the summary. So, the "Ai is not the default" claim is bullshit, and I'm now less trusting of duckduckgo if they're willing to pretend their 'no AI' angle is substantial. 30% increase on the noai.duckduckgo.com subdomain. I wonder what % that is of their total traffic? Can I guess <5%?
Techcrunch mentions this in the last paragraph.
Nice marketing I guess? If techcrunch would lead with pointing out this is just marketing and they're totally an AI company, this article would count as journalism.
Honest question: Are people this stupid? Are techcrunch reporters this credulous and uncritical? I am genuinely completely on board with replacing this kind of 'journalism' with AI summaries of PR releases rather than gild them with fading gleam of actual journalism.
I've been building information extraction and discourse analysis tools for exactly this reason: most 'journalism' is lower effort than a the AI summaries they're complaining about.
Amazing to place this level of disdain into a comment that is so completely incorrect
"AI is not the default" is not a claim made anywhere AFAICT, especially not with that wording. The only thing you could be referring to is the explicitly no-ai url, which AFAICT has no "Auto-Generated" "Search Assist" (that's kinda the point), and it also hasn't used that phrase ever that I've seen in months.
So I kinda feel I have to ask: did you read the article, or did you read an AI summary?
Replace journalism with AI summaries... of what?
What is the AI going to summarize once journalism is dead?
Press releases, which is what too much of what we call ‘journalism’ summarises anyway.
> So, the "Ai is not the default" claim is bullshit
Where was this claim made? Nowhere in the article says that.
Edit: I know how to turn off the goddamn AI that’s not the point
I've used DDG as my primary search and it was maddening when they put that stupid AI response thing in there last year because it was not helpful and I'm a huge advocate of AI
Everything is marketing now
Just use http://noai.duckduckgo.com/, which is mentioned in TFA.
You missed the whole point of my comment. Long time DDG users have had to deal with their dumb AI for a year now
Everyone is aware of this new marketing URL now
Been a DDG user for about a decade, ever since I stopped using Google search.
Click the gear on the Search Assist box, and click the bottom option that says "Never". Right beneath it, it says: "Completely disables Search Assist".
It's always been easy to avoid DDG's AI, which was the point of my comment.
You can turn that all off in a few clicks and I believe it is kept in your site cookie so you don't need to log in
https://duckduckgo.com/settings#aifeatures
There is a very prominent "show always / show on demand / disable completely" button, which you can choose and is respected indefinitely from that point on. That's orders of magnitude better than anything else, and really the best you can do short of refusing to use any AI at all.
Step 1: read the article. Step 2 (optional): comment on the article.
You're doing these in the wrong order.
You should explain why, otherwise you risk becoming part of the problem.
Why in general? Because if you don't read the article, you run a strong risk of reacting to things that the article didn't actually say. See OP for a good example.
Why this OP specifically? Because he is strongly reacting to the article's claim that "Ai is not the default" ... which is not stated or implied by the article he's replying to.
The article is a useful bulletin that DDG has a "no AI" function, previously accessible via a URL and now through extensions as well. OP is acting like DDG is claiming to be an anti-AI company, based on nothing stated in the article.
It's just that people have different understanding of the world and assuming something is self evident is dangerous. For instance the problem here is the apparent disconnection between the comment and the article, but maybe it's just that the connection isn't evident to you.
Take this response to a comment of mine for instance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48144461. I've read the article and someone thought I didn't because he didn't see the connection I saw and acted all righteously, almost as this threads OP.
So in order to avoid embarrassing yourself online it's always nice to first give people the benefit of the doubt and then avoid being sneaky and clever when communication what you want.
I don't owe the benefit of the doubt to a comment that says "this is just marketing" and "are people this stupid?". If OP is going to make dismissive, vitriolic comments like that, he should probably make sure that the article is actually saying anything like what he claims.
You should explain the problem, otherwise you risk becoming part of the same problem.
Surely there is a problem in OPs mind that prompted him to write this message so why should I explain it when op already knows it?