Remix.run Logo
mrdependable 3 hours ago

They want to capture more of the value that was previously going to others. That's basically what this has all been leading to. Why let a cooking website get visitors and ad revenue when they are free to take the content and show it as their own? Now they are going to do the same to e-commerce. Either they are going to let customers buy their products through Google's interface, or they won't be discovered. No more ownership of the customer relationship. Stores will be a backend warehouse and manufacturer now with Google taking a percentage of all profits.

jeltz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is the same thing as when they pushed for AMP. They wanted to prevent traffic from leaving google.com then too.

dpkirchner 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In that case at least they could point out that end users got better results with AMP than they do with news sites w/o ad blockers. The AI results are just wrong so often I don't really get it.

pluc 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The results are not wrong, they are AI. Google wants that to become a distinct thing that is neither. What's a better answer for Google than one that generates more usage? If we all push in the same direction we can make AI work, we just need to accept we will need to hold its hand for a while.

Forgeties79 an hour ago | parent [-]

I think this is sarcastic but man some people really do have some wild defenses for LLM’s so I can’t be sure lol

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
eithed 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why let a cooking website get visitors and ad revenue when they are free to take the content and show it as their own?

I think this is a step beyond that - why should people be creating cooking websites when you can ask LLM how to cook given thing, while indeed, serving their own ads. It's the continuation of "we own content other people produce" policy

rolph 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

recall the pizza sauce glue trick, to stop cheese from sliding off.

there are other such goodies like mashed potatoes with broken lightbulb gravy, or fiberglass omelette, enjoyed by beldar conehead.

i wouldnt trust an AI for any recipe that i dont have personal experience with.

the safety rails are not very strong yet.

eithed an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I agree and this response was following OPs example. But the point still stands - the goal is to outsource, in a weird way, the results being served = Google as such wouldn't need to pay for content. Now, if accuracy of such sources doesn't matter (or is good enough) for casual user...

redsocksfan45 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

watwut 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google already killed cooking websites - when it refused to show them in search unless they added long slop content to it. And it killed blogosphere when it decided blogs wont be found if they just contain content without deliberate SEO play.

And I think the rest of it will end the same way. People will be significantly less eager to do all that free work when no one will be able to find it.

alberto467 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can also tell the LLM exactly what you have in the fridge or what allergies you have and get customized recipes. It’s just a better experience, 2026 is rough for a recipe site.

xigoi an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Would you trust the tool that recommended putting glue on pizza to give you a good recipe?

coryrc 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I have/make rice starch glue. Can you put it on food? How are you supposed to know whether it's food safe?

Okay, so you don't trust LLM, so you go to a website instead. And... LLM-generated pages are SEO'd to get the top links. So you can't trust any website now (shoot, so much nonsense even before LLM, just more obvious to some of us). So basically everything on a computer is untrustworthy, directly from an LLM or not, unless you got yourself a copy of Encarta '97.

So you pick up a book at the local library. Librarians picked some books to order in subject matters they aren't expert in. How do you know those are accurate and safe? If the book says to use rice starch glue, how do you know the author didn't just copy that from an LLM? Or make it up?

Trust is fading entirely.

lpapez 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

If the user puts glue on their pizza because a computer said so, that's a human problem.

The computer generated recipes can be useful as inspiration, but of course common sense is required.

thwarted 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

This "common sense" you refer to, is it the same common sense Babbage was subject to?

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

~ Charles Babbage

eithed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This video tells me otherwise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDQds7VZkfg ( Cold Ones - We Drank AI's Horrible Cocktail Ideas). This is a tongue in cheek response though, as LLMs improved significantly since then.

leereeves 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You can also tell the LLM exactly what you have in the fridge or what allergies you have and get customized recipes.

Can you really though? Are the results delicious? I've never tried that.

hilariously 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's worse than you think, many recipe sites do not taste test their stuff at all, and often have very stupid instructions.

That being said, an LLM can give creative ideas, mix and match components, but you should not trust the details at all.

ben_w 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Case in point, when "minced meat" and "mincemeat" were mixed up: https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/09/american-website-includes-act...

shakow an hour ago | parent [-]

Damn, TIL. Now “Operation Mincemeat” seems less macabre.

justsomehnguy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Is this mushroom edible.jpg

866-RON-0-FEZ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe it's high time to burn it all down.

Block Googlebot from your sites.

Let's go back to webrings.

xp84 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's certainly long been clear that Google is phasing out even the idea that they serve end-users "links" to other websites. They're just refining the idea and making it more and more explicit. It absolutely places them in an obviously adversarial position to every single other website on the Internet, and anyone who continues to cooperate with Google today is probably handing Google the tools to put them out of business. Unfortunately, whole generations of people have grown up learning that the safest and easiest way to navigate to a website is to type some version of the brand into their browser (which Google likely owns outright) and click the first thing Google spits back, so Google enters this battle holding most of the cards :(

georgeecollins 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly! They also have been letting the results of google search get seriously degraded by ads. Would many people prefer AI over google search circa 2010?

They killed their competition and now they will give you the product that gives them the most money.

throwaway27448 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would anyone go to google anymore tho? If it doesn't furnish results it's just a chatbot

strifey 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This has been their MO with their search for a decade+ now. "Native" results hiding actual search results below the fold killed many 2010s era websites that relied on search traffic.

worik 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

"Greed is bad"