I recently bought a DDG subscription because of their duck.ai service.
For $10/month it’s great to have someone whose incentives are aligned with my own managing my relationships with AI companies I’d otherwise have to monitor constantly for privacy abuses.
I haven’t noticed a recent degradation in DDG’s search results, but I’m also turning to duck.ai more frequently and on the whole my search/investigation experience is better.
The one significant downside is that duck.ai limits the length of your chats, but considering the price that’s not surprising.
The direction I’d like to see the industry go is better integration of search results into AI chat, blurring the distinction between the two. That would make both products more compelling: search results are made more friendly with AI summaries, and original sources help to counter AI hallucinations and obsequious blather.
AI is killing websites[0]. Why visit a website if the AI summary is good? But soon, if everyone is only using AI results, then there will be no reason to create new websites, unless you don't care about anyone visiting your site except for AI crawlers.
[0]: I won't bother linking any articles since there are too many articles on the subject and whatever I link is probably not the site you want (or is maybe paywalled).
There are many serious ethical and practical problems posed by the rise of LLMs, and I agree that this is one.
My hope is that AI helps to fine tune inquiries and helps users discover websites that would otherwise not have been uncovered by traditional index-based search.
Unfortunately it’s in the interests of search and AI companies to keep you inside their portals, so they may be less than willing to link to the outside even when it would improve the experience.
Hard agree. I was recently at a talk from Jaron Lanier[0], who proposed that AI should, after every query, present on the right-side of the page a list of all clickable sources where AI gathered it's data from, so that we could verify accuracy, as well as allowing us to continue giving traffic to websites.
> AI should, after every query, present on the right-side of the page a list of all clickable sources
The default internet device these days is the phone; so many people don’t even use desktop any more. Space limitations on small screens mean that this is unlikely to be shown by default. Moreover, phone interfaces discourage most users from opening multiple new tabs forking off any webpage. You might show desktop users this and get some uptake, but that’s not enough to save the open web.
> Unfortunately it’s in the interests of search and AI companies to keep you inside their portals, so they may be less than willing to link to the outside even when it would improve the experience.
This is true, but aren't "AI" summaries directly opposed to this interest? The user will usually get the answer they need much more quickly than if they had to scroll down the page, hunt for the right result, and get exposed to ads. So "AI" summaries are actually the better user experience.
In time I'm sure that we'll see ads embedded in these as well, but in the current stage of the "AI" hype cycle, users actually benefit from this feature.
Yes, users can rely on "AI" summaries if they want a quick answer, but they've been able to do that for years via page snippets underneath each result, which usually highlight the relevant part of the page. The same argument was made when search engines began showing page snippets, yet we found a balance, and websites are still alive.
On the contrary, there's an argument to be made that search engines providing answers is the better user experience. I don't want to be forced to visit a website, which will likely have filler, popups, and be SEO'd to hell, when I can get the information I want in a fraction of the time and effort, within a consistent interface. If I do need additional information, then I can go to the source.
I do agree with the idea you mention below of search engines providing source links, but even without it, "AI" summaries can hardly be blamed for hurting website traffic. Websites are doing that on their own with user hostile design, SEO spam, scams, etc.
There is a long list of issues we can criticize search engines for, and the use of "AI" even more so, but machine-generated summaries on SERPs is not one of them IMO.
I guess you didn't take up my offer to search for how AI is killing traffic. There are numerous studies that repeatedly prove this to be true, this relatively recent article links to a big pile of them[0]. Why would anyone visit a website, if the AI summary is seemingly good enough?
My issue with AI summaries is that they are not even remotely accurate, trustworthy or deterministic. Someone else posted this wonderful evidence[1] in the comments. LLMs are sycophantic and agree with you all the time, even if it means making shit up. Maybe things will improve, but for the last 2 years, I have not seen much progress regarding hallucinations or deterministic i.e. reliable/trustworthy responses. They are still stochastic token guessers with some magic tricks sprinkled on top to make results slightly better than last month's LLMs.
And what happens when people stop creating new websites because they aren't getting any visitors (and by extension ad-revenue)? New info will stop being disseminated. Where will AI summarize data, if there is no new data to summarize? I guess they can just keep rehashing the new AI-generated websites, and it will be one big pile of endlessly recycled AI shit :)
p.s. I don't disagree with you regarding SEO spam, hostile design, cookie popups, etc. There is even a hilariously sad website[2] which points out how annoying websites have become. But using non-deterministic sycophantic AI to "summarize" websites is not the answer, at least not in the current form.
> My issue with AI summaries is that they are not even remotely accurate, trustworthy or deterministic.
Who cares if it's deterministic? Google changes their algorithms all the time, you don't know what its devs will come up with next, when they release it, when they deploy it, when the previous cache gets cleared. It doesn't matter.
Haha, I suppose the problem is that LLM outputs are unreliable yet presented as authoritative (disclaimers do little to counteract the boffo confidence with which LLMs bullshit) — not that they are unreliable in unpredictable ways.
I'm well aware of the studies that "prove" that "AI" summaries are "killing" traffic to websites. I suppose you didn't consider my point that the same was said about snippets on SERPs before "AI"[1].
> My issue with AI summaries is that they are not even remotely accurate, trustworthy or deterministic.
I am firmly on the "AI" skeptic side of this discussion. And yet if there's anything this technology is actually useful for is for summarizing content and extracting key points from it. Search engines contain massive amounts of data. Training a statistical model on it that can provide instant results to arbitrary queries is a far more efficient method of making the data useful for users than showing them a sorted list of results which may or may not be useful.
Yes, it might not be 100% accurate, but based on my own experience, it is reliable for the vast majority of use cases. Certainly beats hunting for what I need in an arbitrarily ordered list and visiting hostile web sites.
> LLMs are sycophantic and agree with you all the time, even if it means making shit up.
Those are issues that plague conversational UIs, and long context windows. "AI" summaries answer a single query and the context is volatile.
> And what happens when people stop creating new websites because they aren't getting any visitors (and by extension ad-revenue)? New info will stop being disseminated.
That's baseless fearmongering and speculation. Websites might be impacted by this feature, but they will cope, and we'll find ways to avoid the doomsday scenario you're envisioning.
Some search engines like Kagi already provide references under their "AI" summaries. If Google is pressured to do so, they will likely do the same as well.
So the web will survive this specific feature. Website authors should be more preoccupied with providing better content than with search engines stealing their traffic. I do think that "AI" is a net negative for the world in general, but that's a separate discussion.
Sorry I didn't meant to discount your argument. I don't think SERPs are a valid comparison, AI is for me an apples vs. oranges comparison, or rather rocks vs. turtles :)
btw your linked article/study doesn't support your argument - SERPs are definitely stealing clicks (just not nearly as many as AI):
> In other words, it looks like the featured snippet is stealing clicks from the #1 ranking result.
I should maybe clarify: I have been using LLMs since the day they arrived on the scene and I have a love/hate relationship with them. I do use summaries sometimes, but I generally still prefer to just at least skim TFA unless it's something where I don't care about perfect accuracy. BTW did you click on that imgur link? It's pretty damning - the AI summary you get depends entirely on how you phrase your query!
> Yes, it might not be 100% accurate, but based on my own experience, it is reliable for the vast majority of use cases. Certainly beats hunting for what I need in an arbitrarily ordered list and visiting hostile web sites.
What does "vast majority" mean? 9 out of 10? Did/do you double-check the accuracy regularly? Or did you stop verifying after reaching the consensus that X/Y were accurate enough? I can imagine as a tech-savvy individual, that you still verify from time to time and remain skeptical but think of 99% of the users who don't care/won't bother - who just assume AI summaries are fact. That's where the crux of my issue lies: they are selling AI output as fact, when in fact, it's query-dependent, which is just insane. This will (or surely has) cost plenty of people dearly. Sure, reading a summary of the daily news is probably not gonna hurt anyone, but I can imagine people have/will get into trouble believing a summary for some queries e.g. renter rights - which I did recently (combination summaries + paid LLMs), and almost believed it until I double-checked with a friend who works in this area who then pointed out a few minor but critical mistakes, which then saved my ass from signing some bad paperwork. I'm pretty sure AI summaries are still just inaccurate, non-deterministic LLMs with some special sauce to make them slightly less sketchy.
> Those are issues that plague conversational UIs, and long context windows. "AI" summaries answer a single query and the context is volatile.
Just open that imgur link. Or try it for yourself. Or maybe you are just good at prompting/querying and get better results.
> So the web will survive this specific feature. Website authors should be more preoccupied with providing better content than with search engines stealing their traffic.
I agree the web will survive in some form or other, but as my Register link shows (with MANY linked studies), it already IS killing web traffic to a great degree because 99% of users believe the summaries. I really hope you are right, and the web is able to weather this onslaught.
Just to add fuel to the fire...AI output is non deterministic even with the same prompt. So users searching the same thing may get different results. The output is not just query dependent
> What does "vast majority" mean? 9 out of 10? Did/do you double-check the accuracy regularly? Or did you stop verifying after reaching the consensus that X/Y were accurate enough?
I don't verify the accuracy regularly, no. And I do concede that I may be misled by the results.
But then again, this was also possible before "AI". You can find arguments on the web supporting literally any viewpoint you can imagine. The responsiblity of discerning fact from fiction remains with the user, as it always has.
> Just open that imgur link. Or try it for yourself. Or maybe you are just good at prompting/querying and get better results.
I'm not any better at it than any proficient search engine user.
The issue I see with that Imgur link is that those are not search queries. They are presented as claims, and the "AI" will pull from sources that back up those claims. You would see the same claims made by web sites listed in the results. In fact, I see that there's a link next to each paragraph which will likely lead you to the source website. (The source website might also be "AI" slop, but that's a separate matter...) So Google is already doing what you mentioned as a good idea above.
All the "AI" is doing there is summarizing content you would find without it as well. That's not proof of hallucinations, sycophancy, or anything else you mentioned. What it does is simplify the user experience, like I said. These tools still suffer from these and other issues, but this particular use case is not proof of it.
So instead of phrasing a query as a claim ("NFL viewership is up"), I would phrase it using keywords ("NFL viewership statistics 2025"). Then I would see the summarized statistics presented by "AI", drill down and go to the source, and make up my mind on which source to trust. What I wouldn't do is blindly trust results from my biased claim, whether they're presented by "AI" or any website.
> it already IS killing web traffic to a great degree because 99% of users believe the summaries. I really hope you are right, and the web is able to weather this onslaught.
I don't disagree that this feature can impact website traffic. But I'm saying that "killing" is hyperbole. The web is already a cesspool of disinformation, spam, and scams. "AI" will make this even worse by enabling website authors to generate even more of it. But I'm not concerned at all about a feature that right now makes extracting data from the web a little bit more usable and safer. I'm sure that this feature will eventually also be enshittified by ads, but right now, I'd say users gain more from it than what they lose.
E.g. if my grandma can get the information she needs from Google instead of visiting a site that will infect her computer with spyware and expose her to scams, then that's a good thing, even if that information is generated by a tool that can be wrong. I can explain this to her, but can't easily protect her from disinformation, nor from any other active threat on the modern web.
Summary is supposed to give you a taste of what the link destination talks about. If most of the page information can be fitted in one paragraph of summarization, the problem is with webpage, and visiting that webpage would have been a waste of the user time.
Let me remind you of recipe websites as an example of how summaries can be better by ignoring all of the useless crap that has nothing to do with making the dish
I find that if I describe an esoteric bug to a high powered LLM, I often get to my answer more quickly than if I trawl through endless search results. The synthesis itself is a valuable addition.
Frequently I cannot even find source documents which match my exact circumstances; I’m uncertain whether they actually exist.
agreed, the other half is that most websites now are just AI generated slop that makes you wonder why you even bothered to look at the actual website instead of the llm.
For $10/month it’s great to have someone whose incentives are aligned with my own managing my relationships with AI companies I’d otherwise have to monitor constantly for privacy abuses.
I haven’t noticed a recent degradation in DDG’s search results, but I’m also turning to duck.ai more frequently and on the whole my search/investigation experience is better.
The one significant downside is that duck.ai limits the length of your chats, but considering the price that’s not surprising.
The direction I’d like to see the industry go is better integration of search results into AI chat, blurring the distinction between the two. That would make both products more compelling: search results are made more friendly with AI summaries, and original sources help to counter AI hallucinations and obsequious blather.