this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
1588 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
87994 readers
3708 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Text search is fine but not better than something that can both find you the most likely result you are looking for AND explain it to you if its too technical.
Text search is what Yahoo and Ask Jeeves did. Then Google improved on it by adding algorithmic search.
I bring up accuracy because its not 100% accurate. But if it works 85- 90 percent of the time, which it currently does according to benchmarks, that's more efficient than Text search even accounting for times you need to adjust.
And no its not as cost efficient, but again I dont care as the end user because its not my cost.
Are you like, being purposefully ignorant here? I'm pointing out the fact that these trillion dollar companies weren't profitable for years on end before they became so. And in the end their profitability is irrelevant to me. I don't care how much AI costs them if they arent charging me for it.
And stop with your pedantic "you think free is free omg" argument. Go pay with actual money for your subpar searches then while your data is still being collected everywhere
Bro...
Tell me what you are seeing. This page you linked shows all top models for AI research at above 80% and the top ones at 90%.
Here is an April article stating Gemini AI summary at 90%. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/technology/google-ai-overviews-accuracy.html
And keep on mind these benchmarks will use more complex searches than what people use normally.
75% sounds like 2025, but let's say that is the the number we both agree to. That's still useful enough most of the time that you wouldn't scroll or search further. AND it requires you to take the stance that technology remains at a standstill and never improves over time. Let me ask you this. 1 year ago reddit and lemmy had plenty of posts showing awful and memey AI summary and search results. Where are those posts now?
Finally the money part. I point you to Youtube. A company that was never , got bought out and still remains free* to this day. Is it enshittified from before? Yes. But its still not withdrawing a dime from my bank account.
I am perfectly aware of the situation. But i don't have a doomerism view on it that a lot of you share. If we never shared our any of our data,
We would not have these services most likely. Where do you think traffic and routing data comes from when you use Google Maps? Do you think the average person would prefer paying some company for GPS, and worse everything experience? Would the average person pay monthly for something like a 100 MB email mailbox?
For that reason I'm more ok trading data for service. Most of the time that data use is for monetary purposes which motivates the company to also improve said service (to a point).
That said I fully support more regulation to the industry on how data is handled in general.
I guess you just like being super pedantic because apparently you do know the difference between directory based searches and what came after it. Feel free to argue how yahoo and altavista was fine and the world really didn't need Google search though.
Tell me what aggregates you are seeing. I have no idea what you are looking at on this page that is suppose to prove your point on accuracy.
Because right now you brought up a benchmark site and then just saying how all benchmarks are skewed. That's fine and all but can you tell me what you are actually looking at so we can be on the same page??
And again, at 75% or 70%, or whatever you imagine current accuracy is, what happened to all the memes about Gemini telling you to add bleach to pancakes or something? Low hanging karma posts just literally disappeared. Why do you think that is? A google search for "funny gpt answers" brings up results from 2024. Let that sink in.
I imagine it's quite the burden being so morally superior to the vast majority of humanity.
You're trying to explain by ignoring my question regarding your source not once but twice.
And also conveniently ignoring the actual point being made and instead focusing on whether or not its 75% or 85% or what is an algorithm
And also dismissing arguments because its morally beneath you.
You sure are doing a great job helping people understand when you, for the third time, refuse to answer the question about where your source refers to accuracy. You haven't provided jack.
You sure also sound quite prideful to the fact that this is just about me and my preferences, that you can't see this is actually how most people view the world.
Tell me, actually answer me here instead of deflecting: Do you really think the world is just stupid? They all use google or Gmail or YouTube or Facebook and dont realize their data is being collected? You think if you just help educate them they will all realize and stop using these services?
I have no worries here. I'm not the one that's going to fall behind while screaming at the clouds as tech keeps rolling along.