this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
1705 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

83251 readers
4192 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 58008@lemmy.world 212 points 2 months ago (19 children)

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.

[–] Magnum 60 points 2 months ago (1 children)

lol what? Do they have some kind of statement addressing that?

[–] Deckname@olio.cafe 52 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Yes they addressed it here. its kind of understandable given that they want to exist and everyone else has AI... But companies... At least you can turn it off.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 40 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

At this point, not having AI would be a selling point.

[–] Magnum 33 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I wish they would have talked about how many trees you need to offset an ecosia AI search

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 181 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Yeah. I'm actually kind of upset that I have to type 'noai'. That should be the standard.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 83 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I hope they learn their lesson from their own poll.

[–] Balinares@pawb.social 42 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I mean, the poll was like as not a publicity stunt, to draw attention to the fact DDG is not doing AI. All the same, the fact they are making "no AI" a selling point is noteworthy.

EDIT: I stand corrected -- apparently DDG does do AI presently. Hopefully they're serious about reconsidering that, then.

[–] mjr 58 points 2 months ago (2 children)

… the fact DDG is not doing AI.

They are, unless you opt out.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 14 points 2 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 123@programming.dev 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I still get a bunch of AI bullshit unless I go out of my way. Also I swear they keep reactivating it as much as google when you opt out (or select ddg no ai as your search engine in Firefox and still see that garbage).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] setsubyou@lemmy.world 101 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The article already notes that

privacy-focused users who don’t want “AI” in their search are more likely to use DuckDuckGo

But the opposite is also true. Maybe it’s not 90% to 10% elsewhere, but I’d expect the same general imbalance because some people who would answer yes to ai in a survey on a search web site don’t go to search web sites in the first place. They go to ChatGPT or whatever.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 106 points 2 months ago (29 children)

It still creeps me out that people use LLMs as search engines nowadays.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago (8 children)

That was the plan. That's (I'm guessing) why the search results have slowly yet noticeably degraded since Ai has been consumer level.

They WANT you to use Ai so they can cater the answers. (tin foil hat)

I really do believe that though. Call me a conspiracy theorist but damn it, it fits.

[–] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

It's not that wild of a conspiracy theory. Hard to get definite proof though because you would have to compare actual search results from the past with the results of the same search from today, and we unfortunately can't travel back in time.

But there are indicators for your theory to be true:

  • It's evident that in UI design the top area of the screen is the most valuable. AI results are always shown there. So we know that selling AI is of utmost importance to Google.
  • The Google search algorithm was altered quite often over the years, these "rollouts" are publicly available information, and a lot of people have written about the changes as soon as they happened.
  • Page ranking fueled a whole industry which was called SEO (Search Engine Optimization). A lot of effort went into understanding how google ranks its results. This was of course done with a different goal in mind but the conclusions from this field can be used to determine if and how search results got worse over time
  • It's an established fact that companies benefit from users never leaving the company's ecosystem. Google as an example tried to prevent a clickthrough to the actual websites in the past, with technologies like AMP or by displaying snippets.
  • If users rely on the AI output Google can effectively achieve this: the user is not leaving the page and Google has full control over what content the user sees.

Now, all of the points listed above can be proven. If you put all of that together it seems at least highly likely that your "conspiracy theory" is in fact true.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 71 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So you make noai the default, yes?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Deestan@lemmy.world 70 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 61 points 2 months ago (4 children)

And yet it's opt out, not opt in.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] letsgo2themall@lemmy.world 50 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I made https://lite.duckduckgo.com/ my homepage. No AI and super fast loading. AI would be fine if it was opt-in. Shoving it into everything to see what works just makes people hate it. Looking at you MS.

[–] coffee_nutcase207@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago

THE AI by default marketing is failing? Shocker

[–] dantheclamman@lemmy.world 42 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think LLMs are fine for specific uses. A useful technology for brainstorming, debugging code, generic code examples, etc. People are just weary of oligarchs mandating how we use technology. We want to be customers but they want to instead shape how we work, as if we are livestock

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Right? Like let me choose if and when I want to use it. Don't shove it down our throats and then complain when we get upset or don't use it how you want us to use it. We'll use it however we want to use it, not you.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

I should further add - don't fucking use it in places it's not capable of properly functioning and then trying to deflect the blame on the AI from yourself, like what Air Canada did.

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-chatbot-misinformation-what-travellers-should-know

When Air Canada's chatbot gave incorrect information to a traveller, the airline argued its chatbot is "responsible for its own actions".

Artificial intelligence is having a growing impact on the way we travel, and a remarkable new case shows what AI-powered chatbots can get wrong – and who should pay. In 2022, Air Canada's chatbot promised a discount that wasn't available to passenger Jake Moffatt, who was assured that he could book a full-fare flight for his grandmother's funeral and then apply for a bereavement fare after the fact.

According to a civil-resolutions tribunal decision last Wednesday, when Moffatt applied for the discount, the airline said the chatbot had been wrong – the request needed to be submitted before the flight – and it wouldn't offer the discount. Instead, the airline said the chatbot was a "separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions". Air Canada argued that Moffatt should have gone to the link provided by the chatbot, where he would have seen the correct policy.

The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal rejected that argument, ruling that Air Canada had to pay Moffatt $812.02 (£642.64) in damages and tribunal fees

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago (11 children)

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.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 41 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

Google became crap about 10 years ago when they added the product banner in the top, and had the first 5-10 search results be promoted ads. Long before they ever considered adding AI.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] radio@sh.itjust.works 36 points 2 months 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%.

[–] thegoodyinthehoody@sh.itjust.works 33 points 2 months ago (4 children)

As much as I agree with this poll, duck duck go is a very self selecting audience. The number doesn’t actually mean much statistically.

If the general public knew that “AI” is much closer to predictive text than intelligence they might be more wary of it

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MutantTailThing@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

AI? FuckFuckNo

[–] Novis@lemdro.id 29 points 2 months ago

NOW the question is, will they listen? Cause we've seen so many times where a company says they're taking feedback and then do the thing that their audience didn't want them to do in the first place anyways. Now, of course, they could have more data and metrics that says people don't care or do want the BS, but I doubt all the companies that DID go hard into AI actually looked at legit numbers, since all the big heads are now saying "why aren't you people using this stuff?"

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's so funny to see this pushed out as a marketing campaign for DuckDuckGo AI and it totally flopped.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

If they take the poll to heart it can still be a sucess. They can advertise that they listened to their users and changed course.

That's the thing about really good marketing - it should not only drive users to use your service, but the reactions to that marketing can be used as market research to improve your product and future marketing in a manner that drives even more users to your product.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

I would like to petition to rename AI to

Simulated
Human
Intelligence
Technology

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 26 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] FirmDistribution@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

omfg you don't say

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Okay, so that’s not what the article says. It says that 90% of respondents don’t want AI search.

Moreover, the article goes into detail about how DuckDuckGo is still going to implement AI anyway.

Seriously, titles in subs like this need better moderation.

The title was clearly engineered to generate clicks and drive engagement. That is not how journalism should function.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 18 points 2 months ago

That's when the Silicon Valley types all bring out the ol' "People don't know what they want until you show it to them." Well, they already showed what LLM can do and it's not that great.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I guess they haven’t asked me or it’d be 91%

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 15 points 2 months ago

It's funny how many people ruffle their feathers over this. Same type of comments as when somebody first shared this poll here: you can't expect this to be representative, it's not a yes/no question etc.

Let's put it like this: I do not want AI pushed on me in almost every online situation. That is a yes/no question to me.

Why? Because it's not ready, wastes the planet, and is the USA's big gamble.

load more comments
view more: next ›