Back in the mid-90s, when the Internet was still called the World Wide Web, and when people used to say they were up all night "surfing the net," there were two primary search engines: Yahoo! and Altavista. The latter was remarkably superior to the former, showing the most accurate matches in the least amount of time. However, as people learned how to game Altavista's sorting mechanisms, the search engine quickly became unusable. Every search would result in the first few pages being "adult-oriented" sites promising more content than a dial-up modem—or a Gen Z teen—could possibly handle. Fortunately, in 1998, geeks started talking about an alternative to Altavista that was remarkably fast, remarkably accurate, and remarkably devoid of spam: Google Search.
Magazine articles fawned over this new entry into the market. They loved the responsiveness. They loved the fact the company was started by a couple of students. They loved the concept of PageRank. They loved that it was called a Beta—something that encouraged lower expectations despite the system's remarkable capabilities.
In the quarter-century since, not much has changed. The company has grown to process most of the world's email, serve most of the world's video, sell most of the world's advertisements, and power half of the world's phones. Some of their ambitious projects have failed, but many have completely transformed the way people accomplish their goals. Despite the positives, there have been some questionable decisions over the years. While some will complain about Google's quiet departure from its "Don't be evil" motto or the elimination of Google Reader, which effectively killed RSS reading, I look at the cumulative changes to their original project as the most disappointing.
For over two decades, Google Search's main process looked like this:
- Access the Google website
- Type what you want in the sole input field
- Get a list of results
- Click the links to be redirected to those websites
It was a simple, easy-to-understand way to find information and discover websites that we might want to visit frequently going forward. What made Google Search better than other platforms like Facebook was this seemingly selfless action from Google to direct traffic to any website, regardless of whether it was run by a large company or a single individual. Everybody had an equal opportunity to entertain, educate, or expatiate. How incredibly utopian!
But all good things must come to an end. Google Search is no different. A few years ago, there were complaints about the search engine showing news articles on the results page rather than just links. Then there were complaints about ads appearing at the top of the results list without clearly looking like ads. Later, there were complaints about YouTube videos being prioritised over the written word. Now it's an AI-generated answer that has taken the top spot on the results page.
A well-structured argument can certainly be made for using an AI-generated answer at the top of the page. Off the top of my head, I could see Google using a person's profile history to have the generated answer written with the reader's preferences in mind. This could also be used to seamlessly translate results from one language into another, which would be ideal for immigrants or visitors to a country who may struggle with the local tongue. Then there's an argument that can be made for the ability to combine information from numerous websites, distilling the gist into an easily understood paragraph. This could save so much time!
However … I have concerns.
One of the greatest joys of the early internet was the serendipity of discovery. Clicking through links, stumbling upon personal blogs, niche forums, or independent news sites that offered fresh perspectives. With AI-generated summaries taking precedence, we're funnelled into a homogenised stream of information, curated not by a diversity of thought but by algorithms designed to optimise engagement. The richness of the web gets flattened, and the voices of small, independent creators are drowned out.
While personalised results might seem convenient, they also reinforce echo chambers. By tailoring content to individual preferences, Google risks narrowing our worldview. The search engine that once expanded our horizons now subtly confines them, confirming biases rather than allowing them to be challenged. This isn't just an issue of informational myopia—it's a societal concern, shaping how we understand the world around us.
AI-generated content introduces a new layer of opacity. We no longer see the direct sources of information; instead, we're presented with distilled answers without clear attribution. This makes it difficult to verify facts, assess credibility, or understand context. Trust in search results, once grounded in visible links to reputable sources, becomes more fragile when the 'How?' and 'Why?' behind an answer are obscured.
Let's not forget: Google is an advertising company. The prioritisation of AI summaries could conveniently steer users away from organic links and towards content that aligns with Google's business interests. The blurred line between genuine information and subtle marketing becomes even murkier, challenging our ability to discern objective facts from commercially motivated narratives.
Google Search has undeniably evolved, but not all change is progress. The shift from being a gateway to the internet to a gatekeeper of information raises critical questions about discovery, diversity, and digital autonomy. Perhaps it's time we reconsider not just how we search, but where we search.