zlacker

>Do you need to open an entire website to learn how to sort an array in JavaScript with a lambda function?

That's exactly what Google is implying, isn't it?

By placing a redirect to an LLM at the top, and following it with bad search results, Google is saying "don't bother with the web, asking an LLM is better".

It is a very shortsighted thing to say, as a company whose moat and expertise is search. Particularly so when LLMs aren't yet proved to be a viable path to profit and there are other players in the game.

>>kace91+(OP)
Google had two choices, and one of them was "bury your head in sand and hope this entire LLM thing goes away". They weren't dumb enough to take that choice.

>>ACCoun+k
I don't think it's already clear which is the dumb choice.

LLMs are clearly a useful product, I'm not arguing that. That's not sufficient for being the new Search.

To be the new Search, they also need LLMs to be performant enough to be profitable. And yet, stay unperformant enough that it isn't feasible to run them locally. And they have to stay useful long term, after the web is flooded by slop or content dries up because people stopped consuming the web directly. And a monetisation path needs to be found and survive legislation.

But more importatntly, it's not A or B. Gemini could have been pushed without sacrificing their golden-egg goose for the cause.

>>kace91+(OP)
Their basic model is a user asks a question and they put up results along with some ads. Maybe it doesn't matter so much if the results are page rank search or LLMs?