I don't want to spend my one precious life dealing with Google's AI search

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s new AI-generated “overview” results in search are drawing criticism for being slow, often wrong, and pushing traditional web links further down the page. Commenters argue that the change reflects Google’s ad-driven incentives and investor pressure to appear AI‑forward, even at the cost of user experience and search quality. Many report switching to alternatives like DuckDuckGo, Kagi, or Firefox, and worry that AI answers will further centralize control over information and undermine the open web.

AI Search UX: Speed, Placement, and Quality

  • Many dislike Google’s AI Overviews because they add ~3s latency, feel sluggish compared to instant classic SERPs, and dominate the top of the page, pushing organic results “below the fold.”
  • Users complain about layout shift and visual clutter, especially given Google’s own guidance that penalizes layout shift on other sites.
  • Multiple examples of wrong or hallucinated answers are cited (e.g., nonexistent features, absurd numerical errors). Concern that non‑technical users will treat these as authoritative.
  • Some see AI summaries as useful when they are correct and can reduce clicks, but they remain in the minority in this thread.

Workarounds, Opt‑Outs, and Alternatives

  • People report:
    • Turning off experiments via Google Labs (not universally available).
    • Using the new “Web” search mode, though it’s per‑query and not a true global opt‑out.
    • Blocking AI boxes with uBlock Origin or a Chrome extension that hides AI Overviews.
    • Disabling JavaScript to get faster, simpler Google pages.
  • Many switch or consider switching to DuckDuckGo, Kagi, Ecosia, Bing, or self‑hosted SearXNG; some praise Kagi’s paid, customizable search, others link to past controversies about it.
  • Several advocate switching browsers (especially to Firefox), both for search choice and to reduce Google ecosystem lock‑in, though Firefox’s reliance on Google search funding is noted.

Incentives, Economics, and “Enshittification”

  • Widespread view: the AI push is driven by investor/“AI race” pressure, not user needs. Comparisons to VR hype and AOL’s decline.
  • Skepticism that AI search is economically sustainable given compute costs; expectation that initial generosity will be followed by more ads and lock‑in.
  • Some argue Google’s core business is ads and engagement, so latency budgets and UX are now subordinated to ad auctions and AI positioning.

Broader Concerns: Power, Monopolies, and Information Quality

  • Fears that AI answers will cannibalize traffic, weaken the open web, and make users dependent on opaque LLM outputs.
  • Debate over how much real competition exists: switching is technically easy, but network effects, defaults, and user inertia keep Google dominant.
  • Small‑business/SEO participants describe Google search/ads as already “a disaster” (e.g., bidding on their own brand terms), now further complicated by AI layers.