Can someone articulate what is wrong with this? It intrinsically feels wrong to me, but when I think about it I dont really have any good reasoning why this would be bad.
We expect a standard price and it feels bad when we find out someone else got it cheaper.
But the consumer should be operating the same, they review the deal and if its a price they are willing to pay they go through with it.
Not sure how long "a long time" is so im just going to say 5yr +
A lot of the youtubers I watch are new ones. The old ones either dont post anymore or I dont watch them anymore. These are the only ones I could find out of hundreds of subscriptions.
In nz its generally 22-32$ an hr. Shifts are 6-8hr 5-6 days a week.
For US I'd say whatever wage is required for them to make close to the median wage with 35-40 hr work.
I see median wage at $1200 per week (dam Americans are fucking rich) so id say they should be on $25-30 which puts them at around $1000 a week with 30-40hr work.
If we are just looking at median food/service wage its at $700 a week. So I'd say $17-$23 to reach that $700 a week with 30-40hr work is fair wages. A slight increase for most food/service roles compared with their current median. I'd expect it to be high in the expensive places like NY.
Maybe im to tech-brained but I dont think its a technical barrier. I think that they just dont care enough. One search of "how to remove AI from DDG" would bring it up but they never care about the issue enough to take that first step.
I sometimes observe this with my family members, who will complain "oh I dont like how it does X" and I say you can turn that off in the settings and then they dont. It was a minor complain they had but not an actual complain they wanted to solve.
Maybe DDG should do the firefox route of a popup to disable all AI for new users.
Yes that is a good sample size but its biased by the people weighing in caring most about the issue. If it was 175000 users sampled randomly from the DDG user base then yes it would be a good predictor but it wasnt.
I checked again to get a more up to date report and so that we actually have something to go off instead of my memory of some random reports. Pew finds 50% of people use chatbots and the most common use is searching for information. Also in the report the have a stat for reading AI summaries at the top of a search and that is 60% say that have, 10% dont know and 30% dont read it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2026/06/17/americans-and-ai-2026-chatbots-smart-devices-and-views-on-impact/
So its fair to say I was wrong and its not over 50% but its close to 50%.
Do you think its because there is a lot more spam and SEO than 10 years ago or do you think google is actively doing something to remove relevant results from searches?
People have said that and ive read a few studies. Its a truism because the search quality degraded but mostly due to SEO and link spam. If someone wants to post actual evidence of google "actively making search worse" I'd love to read it. So far i only saw that it was due to SEO spam which affects all search providers. While people here are trying to claim it was done nefariously to force people towards AI.
I dont think AI summary is ever going to be something people NEED. In most cases its better and it will cover majority of searches but its unlikely to cover 100% of cases. You will always need to be able to find things on the web like links.
AI in other areas its not even looking bad for workers. Its largely overhyped from what I see. Programming seems the most useful field but even then its like x0.1 or x0.2 boost in efficiency. This year it got much better. Maybe things will change next year I'll have to see.
You can't discuss it because you have no coherent reasoning behind why you arrived at your position. You are a reactionary who knows very little and parrots what you hear.
If you dont want to use AI fine but you're wasting your time trying to discuss it when you have nothing about it to discuss. This is a technology community not an anti AI schzio ranting community.
Most news isnt static. Its an app and its a link embedded in an app. Blogs are not popular or relevant so idk why we are even talking about them. Substack has most of the market and its not a static site.
Ecommerce could not be static without major regressions to usablity.
I do live in a place with fast internet but we are talking about future and I think its stupid to build a future web for people who have slow internet when all the trends point to increasing internet speeds and connection around the world. I'm sure Africa doesnt want to finally get online and see everything be a static site.
You can run discord off a mobile data connection, when Africa builds out their Internet infra they will prefer services like discord over low bandwidth stripped down barebones services.
the future web doesnt need to care about a 1mb page or a 10mb page. It only matters what you can do. Static site can do very little. You can't have Lemmy as static site and Lemmy is an example of what I think future web could be. Open, interconnected, full of features and QoL. Lemmy gives you the things reddit tries to sell you.
You can still search on search engines some searches dont even have any ads. So what feature was removed? They actively started showing worse results ok what did they do?
Search engines still search same as they did in the 2010s. They have had ads for decades. It hasnt increased you search you see an ad or two or even none.
Your replies are equivalent to AI slop. If you are going to write something please at least think about what you are writing.
How is a summary at the top of the page different from the first result? If you are fine with the first result being incorrect I dont see why you wouldnt also accept the summary to be sometimes wrong. There are still 10 results for you to pick from and infinite pages to scroll through.
If it depends on the confidence do you need them to put a disclaimer? If I'm looking for something important I'm going to actual documentation and skipping the summary even when its correct. But if I'm just searching for something low stakes and the summary answers my question I am happy to not dig any further and I consider it to be an improvement on the search experience.
These days its pretty accurate. I rarely come across a summary thats incorrect. Mostly I see incorrect summaries on searches where i already know I'm going to get a lot of wrong answers and have to sift through sites and old posts.
Common: A wallet with a few dollars, an Id card, library card, gym card. A monster energy, a broken watch, a book(common)
Uncommon: Headphones, a cool hat, cool socks(mismatched), an Acer 730 chromebook, boxing gloves
Rare drop: car keys to a shitty 2002 Toyota that isnt currently running
Dam I really dont own/carry many valuable items.