I understand this statement given the intentional degradation of the Google search engine and the manipulation and censoring of output.
However, I would strongly disagree with the statement. A skilled user who understands how to ask questions, leverage personas and avoid AI hallucinations in the output can get results that dramatically exceed anything a search engine can provide.
Now that being said, I am not saying AI is a net positive. I am not at all surprised by the clinical trial referenced in this post and it's exactly why I limit my use of AI. I have colleagues that literally allow AI to write their business emails and that seems like a great way (to me at least) for one's brain to turn into mush eventually.
But regardless, there's an enormous delta between the output of AI and a search engine, as long as the user is reasonably proficient in engaging with the AI.
Well, it depends what you use a search engine for, or for that matter, AI.
AI is great at giving short answers to simple questions by querying the carefully curated walled garden that google has become. If that's your end goal, AI will get you there faster, to be sure.
If, instead, you're using a search engine to begin a journey of discovery or knowledge building and want options and differing viewpoints - something you could have gotten from Google 20 years ago, then, right now, AI isn't going to help you.
Or God forbid you just want to explore with no real goal in mind - some of my most interesting times on the web were exploring links that got pulled up and really weren't pertinent to my search but that caught my eye and sent me down a rabbit hole. That doesn't happen when AI (and google) is the gatekeeper to the results. Sometimes efficiency sucks all the joy out of life.
I understand this statement given the intentional degradation of the Google search engine and the manipulation and censoring of output.
However, I would strongly disagree with the statement. A skilled user who understands how to ask questions, leverage personas and avoid AI hallucinations in the output can get results that dramatically exceed anything a search engine can provide.
Now that being said, I am not saying AI is a net positive. I am not at all surprised by the clinical trial referenced in this post and it's exactly why I limit my use of AI. I have colleagues that literally allow AI to write their business emails and that seems like a great way (to me at least) for one's brain to turn into mush eventually.
But regardless, there's an enormous delta between the output of AI and a search engine, as long as the user is reasonably proficient in engaging with the AI.
Well, it depends what you use a search engine for, or for that matter, AI.
AI is great at giving short answers to simple questions by querying the carefully curated walled garden that google has become. If that's your end goal, AI will get you there faster, to be sure.
If, instead, you're using a search engine to begin a journey of discovery or knowledge building and want options and differing viewpoints - something you could have gotten from Google 20 years ago, then, right now, AI isn't going to help you.
Or God forbid you just want to explore with no real goal in mind - some of my most interesting times on the web were exploring links that got pulled up and really weren't pertinent to my search but that caught my eye and sent me down a rabbit hole. That doesn't happen when AI (and google) is the gatekeeper to the results. Sometimes efficiency sucks all the joy out of life.
If you read the full report, you will find exactly this. The above article conveniently omits much of what the study found.