Google Users Are Less Likely To Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results, Pew Research Finds (pewresearch.org) 64
Google users click on fewer website links when the search engine displays AI-generated summaries at the top of results pages, according to new research from the Pew Research Center. The study analyzed browsing data from 900 U.S. adults and found users clicked on traditional search result links during 8% of visits when an AI summary appeared, compared to 15% of visits without summaries.
Users also rarely clicked on sources cited within the AI summaries themselves, doing so in just 1% of visits. The research found that 58% of respondents conducted at least one Google search in March 2025 that produced an AI summary, and users were more likely to end their browsing session entirely after encountering pages with AI summaries compared to traditional search results.
Users also rarely clicked on sources cited within the AI summaries themselves, doing so in just 1% of visits. The research found that 58% of respondents conducted at least one Google search in March 2025 that produced an AI summary, and users were more likely to end their browsing session entirely after encountering pages with AI summaries compared to traditional search results.
Cuts down on links in responses too ... (Score:2)
You're asking the wrong question ... (Score:2)
AI summaries also reduce the number of links in responses. One just types "Google says:" and that's it for your source citation.
What? You cannot replicate and confirm that summary. Well, you're asking the wrong question then. :-)
AI summaries for a citation? (Score:2)
Google's AI is a good starting pointing for finding citations due to it citing it's own when generating its summary but its summaries are not reliable enough to be used as a citation on their own. I know I wouldnt take an AI summary as evidence of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep trying to tell people in a facebook group I'm in to stop using chatGPT for product comparisons, but they refuse to listen.. so I take the extra 5-10 minutes to do an actual comparison to show when in fact the AI is wrong (and its about 50%)
Just conserving energy (Score:4, Funny)
There was already so much energy wasted by producing the answer, why waste more on critical thinking and confirming the information?
Re: Just conserving energy (Score:2)
According to Gemini :
* âA traditional Google search (just showing links) is like flipping a light switch on for about 17 seconds. It uses a very small amount of energy to quickly retrieve information from a massive, pre-indexed database.
â* A Google Search AI summary is like leaving that same light switch on for 3 to 10 minutes (or even longer, depending on the complexity).
https://g.co/gemini/share/77d637579433
This is problematic, particularly because you cannot opt out of the AI summary, even if y
Re: (Score:2)
Both numbers seem wrong. If a search query would be equivalent to "17 seconds light" (what a stupid unit for energy), Google would be doing something extremely wrong. Just try to extrapolate to the number of queries per second Google receives. The AI number is off by a similar amount, I think. There was once the number of 10 times a usual search query (matches the numbers here roughly), but the search query is extremely cheap.
Between reading your reply and typing my own, I've consumed enough energy to cook a pop tart in a standard toaster. That seems like a better standard to measure power consumption.
Re: (Score:1)
Both numbers seem wrong. If a search query would be equivalent to "17 seconds light" (what a stupid unit for energy), Google would be doing something extremely wrong. Just try to extrapolate to the number of queries per second Google receives. The AI number is off by a similar amount, I think. There was once the number of 10 times a usual search query (matches the numbers here roughly), but the search query is extremely cheap.
17 seconds * 40 watts = 680 watts for a one-second search query. Realistically, that's probably the power used by the entire computer during that second, and there are probably multiple threads on multiple processors, so that's probably off by a single-digit factor, but it doesn't seem entirely implausible.
No idea for the AI number.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what you mean by 680 watts. 17 seconds at 40 watts is 17/3600 * 40 = 0.18 watt hours.
Most wired desktop computers would indeed use more than 40 watts. My very beefy desktop with 13 drives, 64GB of RAM, and 16-core CPU, idles at 175W according to a Kasa smartplug and Home assistant. That's not accounting for the 3 monitors - 23in HD, 2x32in 4K. I think it is less than 200W for them too, though.
Even assuming 400W total between the PC and monitors, the Google query typically returns in 1 second or les
Re: (Score:2)
Your system over-produces 6000 KwHs a year? That seems unlikely. That's 500 KwH a month plus whatever you use. How large is your system? I'm just rather curious is all.
Re: (Score:2)
You can opt out of the AI stuff by adding -ai to your search, but you have to add it to every query; I haven't found a way to make that permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Google summary does provide links. The links are in the sidebar on desktop. On mobile, they're the little paperclip icons next to each paragraph.
With so much to rail on against AI, we don't need to hallucinate more complaints... that's the AI's job.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how elections are both won and lost.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No they literally take the AI answer why wouldn't you? It's not like Google has an interest in giving you any type of truth even with old people links.
Re: (Score:2)
No they literally take the AI answer why wouldn't you? It's not like Google has an interest in giving you any type of truth even with old people links.
Bingo. The real trouble is with failure to confirm what's been assembled. Just ask that one lawyer who got his rump roast chewed out by a judge for submitting six cases in support of his position... that were produced by AI... and never actually existed... which could have been confirmed by a Lexis-Nexis search. My overall problem with AI is that it is still controlled by humans... with political leanings/preferences/outright slants... who will adjust AI filters to match their ideas. It doesn't matter t
Re: (Score:2)
So it's
Re: (Score:2)
It REALLY depends on the kind of search, though.
If I'm doing a quick search to verify if I remember something correctly, and the AI summary or the two line Wikipedia excerpt say exactly what I was expecting, then I'm not going to go any further.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't that the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
The point of the a search engine is to search for information about a topic. If the AI summary provides the information then the search for information comes to an end. I would call this an improvement for the cases where the correct information is returned.
The real question should be what kind of searches have the best summaries. You have to wonder if the most "successful" summaries are mostly people using it like a calculator or a simple manual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Isn't that the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, somethings can be checked in other ways faster than following the links. For example, if I'm looking up the syntax for a library function or command line call, I'll know as soon as I try it whether the command was right or not.
Re: (Score:2)
If you ask the question "how long are human blood vessels"
Almost every website will tell you the incorrect answer 100 000 km. From the top results, only wikipedia and quora will give you the correct answer (9000-19000km).
AI will tell you that answer is 100 000 km according to Cleveland clinic. So it provides you a source, but the source is also incorrect. So how do you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Example, I was looking for the melting point of indium. I know the general range I expect it to be so if the AI spits out a reasonable answer I'll take it. If the answer doesn't fit expectations I'll check it elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
The slop it brings back is frequently incorrect. I google an actress and the show she is most widely known for has her characters name wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is not new. Try to type "1+1" into Google or "1 USD in EUR".
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the point of a search engine. Search engine results generally provide summaries, with a link. The point of the search is to find a list of places where you can go to read *in greater detail* the information provided in the summary. If the summary is giving you an answer to your question, great, but most searches aren't about a single answer to a question.
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, what you use a search engine for is to find information. Saying that it is to find sites that contain the information you want is a moot point because the goal remains the same: to find information. How you get that information may differ from it's origin but the purpose of using a search engine was always to get information.
You may as argue that the purpose of a cellphone is to make wireless telephonic calls rather than it being a multimodal communications device.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the a search engine is to search for information about a topic. If the AI summary provides the information then the search for information comes to an end.
I installed an extension to block the AI results because I kept finding that they were absolute fucking trash. It would give allegedly supporting links, then I'd visit them and find that they absolutely did not support the text they were attached to, and in fact usually contradicted what Gemini said. Most people are not going to do that. They are just going hurr durr okey dokey their way forwards.
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been in the early days, but the Google summaries are improving on a weekly basis. I've been tracking how accurate they are, and it's been steadily ticking upward for the last 4 months. I'm well into 90% trustworthy at this point for anything that is wikipedia level trivia. Yeah, that's not good enough for some topics, but it's pretty amazing how solid it is, and for many topics, it is well past good enough. And often it is as good as "random website that I found says..." that I had before.
I do
Re: Isn't that the point? (Score:2)
The point of the search is to get answers.
How I get those answers is often secondary or completely utterly irrelevant.
I'm not constantly doing research papers, I don't need citations or evidence that would stand up in a court of law, I need a quick answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but as someone who runs a few sites that provide info (on vegan matters), I've noticed in the last 6mos my traffic has dropped pretty significantly.
If Google and others are poaching the work that people do, and results in non-visits, people are probably going to be less likely to even provide that info. (Because it starts to look like no one is interested in your website.)
I don't think that's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not this is a positive development was outside of the scope of the study and I'm not here to debate it.
Totally get it -- but also, refuse to trust it (Score:3)
I entirely understand the psychology behind people trusting an AI answer enough to abandon any further digging -- but at the same time, I'm in that 1% of people who insists on following the citation links, because I just can't bring myself to trust that the AI search results aren't going to turn out to be a hallucination or a bad interpretation of the source material... or even just a poor choice of sources. There are just far too many stories out right now about bad AI answers at best misleading people or at worst giving troubled people the excuse they wanted to go and do horrible things.
I'd really love to see significantly more people probing those citations... because the more eyeballs there are on the AI, the more likely that we will catch it when it does misbehave.
You don't say! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the point. The AI overview is finally the function people waited for who type a question instead of search words into the input field.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it could be smarter in detecting what may justify an instant answer and what not. I guess they also need a bit of marketing for their AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not!
Most Google users are far more interested in Reddit memes than reality!
Is the average internet user really so different now?
Yes. Google has rotted their brains. And mine is next in line!
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't even trained. All the funny examples people showed were summaries of hits in the top 10 search results below the AI overview.
But let's be real, the AI overviews are still being tuned and soon they will be more reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say it's correct 1/10 times. I've already been conditioned to scroll right passed it. The answers are usually not reliable and they're quite long. It's just a waste of time to read.
I already know what I'm looking for (Score:2)
Usually when I'm searching for information on something it's not an unknown new thing where I'm the sponge for the information and manipulation of the internet to mold me to it's latest fantasy on it's quest for riches.
I'll be looking up specific information, technical information, and it just gets me that information a lot faster, Instead of reading someones junk article that tries to get your time on their page for 2 minutes when they know you're looking for the 10 lines of code or instructions that takes
What AI summary? (Score:2)
Well google was cluttered (Score:3)
with ad sponsored results the first 4-5 pages, and often more.
They solved this with a "ChatGPT search engine" of their own since OpenAI was literally destroying them while they were so depending on oh the good money stream of sponsored ad, it was like drugs to them.
So how to get off that drug? Still get the sponsored search results, but top it off with AI Search results.
Profit.
Duh! (Score:1)
Why would I bother clicking on a link when I already got my answer?
Re: Duh! (Score:2)
1:1000 queries need a citation in my life.
Honestly, it's probably closer to 1:10,000
What conclusion to draw here? (Score:2)
Yes, of course (Score:2)
If you are jst lookinv for infi, and the summary is useful, you don't need to go any farther. Personally, if I am only looking for info, I go directly to an AI.
Google gets to re-invent itself. Or fail.
Yep (Score:2)
Now having said all that, it's going to be interesting to see who sues Google first regarding lost revenue due to these shitty sites not receiving the type of traffic they used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly with Google News. One lead clickbait article on the left, Three similar articles on the same subject on the right with some answering the clickbait article in a few words. New articles (in general) have become clickbait headings, similar to The National Enquirer in the grocery store aisle.
Garbage In, Garbage Out (Score:2)
It certainly doesn't help that the first four or five pages of results are completely irrelevant "AI" generated trash anyway, so search is almost not worth the effort.