Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Google The Internet

Google Changes Its Search Box for the First Time in 25 Years (nytimes.com) 63

Google is giving its iconic search box its first major redesign since 2001. The new design incorporates, you guessed it, artificial intelligence, "getting bigger and more interactive so that people can ask even longer questions and upload photographs and videos into queries," reports the New York Times. "In addition, people can ask follow-up questions with a chatbot on Google's main search page." From the report: The company will also offer digital assistants, known as agents, to automate searches so that someone who may be apartment hunting can be notified of a new listing without opening a real estate site like Zillow. The search features will be powered by a new artificial intelligence model, Gemini 3.5 Flash. Google said the model had improved on creating software code and performing autonomous tasks, worked faster and was less expensive to run than comparable models.

[...] Google is also bringing one of A.I.'s biggest breakthroughs -- software coding -- to search. When people research complex topics like astrophysics, Gemini can build interactive graphics and simulations behind the scenes to provide a deeper answer than its previous listing of websites. Google said it was introducing an alternative to the agents powered by Anthropic's Claude Code and OpenAI's Codex. Called Gemini Spark, the service is embedded in Gmail, Docs and other Google products, where it can turn meeting notes spread across emails and chats into a single document. It can also read and draft emails.
"The open web is on its way out," says Richard Kramer, a financial analyst with Arete Research. "With A.I., Google is reducing everyone to raw data providers."

Google Changes Its Search Box for the First Time in 25 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by olddoc ( 152678 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @06:22PM (#66151777)
    Is this the beginning of the end of Google's dominance in online search?
    • by ebunga ( 95613 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @06:25PM (#66151783)

      Google, Amazon, and Microsoft seem to be hell-bent on destroying their businesses, and AI is only a symptom. Ten years from now is going to look very different.

    • Their search engine has been steadily decreasing in usefulness ever since Google+, but for some reason their competitors just keep copying them.

      I've been wondering for a while (and not come up with any solutions) if we could at least create a practical "self hosted" (quotes because obvs it'll be impractical to do that literally) search engine technology so we can start getting Google et al out of the equation if we don't want it, even if everyone else just slavishly uses the big corps systems. It doesn't ha

      • It's called a web crawler. Has AI really made us so dumb that we don't remember web crawlers anymore?
        • Prolly don't remember expert systems either...
        • What exactly are you proposing here that I'm too "dumb" to know? That every single person who wants to get away from Google should run their own webcrawler to populate a local database?

          Do you seriously think that this is practical in any way at all? Do you know how large the world wide web is right now?

          • What exactly are you proposing here that I'm too "dumb" to know? That every single person who wants to get away from Google should run their own webcrawler to populate a local database?

            Do you seriously think that this is practical in any way at all? Do you know how large the world wide web is right now?

            While everybody running their own would be incredibly stupid, not to mention increase power draw and resource usage by orders of magnitude if everyone tried to duplicate a search engine DB on their own system, I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen some form of cooperative / community driven web search alternatives pop up. Yes, it would likely be something people would need to chip in for, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to tossing a fiver or maybe even more each month toward a shared web crawler with a

            • > I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen some form of cooperative / community driven web search alternatives pop up.

              This is what I was originally getting at. I've been trying to figure out a way to think of some kind of semi-selfhosted/federated/etc technology that could be an alternative to Google, but right now I'm not finding anything that's practical. And the usual alternatives people who aren't idiots like the one who thought I'd never heard of webcrawlers (WTF?) come up with are things like "Just

              • SearXNG. It's far from perfect but it's doing hte job for now.
                • Thanks, yeah, I'd seen that before, but I also know it's heavily reliant on everyone else's engines. But is definitely worth supporting even if it's not quite where I'd want to go (which I'm not sure of yet.)

    • The stock market doesn't think so. Goog is up 128% YoY.
      • The stock market doesn't think so. Goog is up 128% YoY.

        Despite economists and talking heads telling us otherwise, the stock market doesn't reflect reality. The stock market is literally a collective hallucination propagation machine. And right now, the hallucination of choice is AI. Look at how much the stock market thought All Birds, a shitty shoe company, deserved for putting out a single press release mentioning their interests in becoming an AI company. You think that bump was based on reality?

        • That AI enables a fundamentally different approach is not in question. That Google has positioned itself at the forefront of that is obvious. What remains to be seen is whether humans or TPUs have a higher price tag for the same quality.
    • by mce ( 509 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2026 @03:41AM (#66152217) Homepage Journal

      No, it is not the beginning. That happened many years ago, when they first started to betray their original USP feature: just a simple textbox on a white page that searched very well and did nothing else. Add to that their massive Google Analytics privacy invasions and Google landed in my hate box a long time ago. I've basically dumped them (with the exception of maps) back when DuckDuckGo was first announced. For a while, I did still fall back on Google if I DDG didn't give me what I wanted fast enough, but over time I've just completely stopped using Google for search. The thought of maybe trying them when a search doesn't do what I want fast enough doesn't even come up anymore.

      And yes, I also hate that even DDG has been adding crap extra features. Whenever they do, I disable those as well.

      I did have a rarely used (i.e. secondary) Google e-mail address at one point, a couple of centuries ago. However, I dropped that as well around 2012 or so and I never looked back. I don't want them auto-reading my e-mail for their own nefarious purposes.

    • Google have forgotten what good search is - I suspect the airy fairy 'designers' have taken hold, and are warping the managements minds with tales of how they're gonna optimise the user experience by leveraging some of the core assets, without boiling the ocean. or some such.

      Aside from the search results being different from the thing you asked for, they have of course been adding in AI. I actually don't have a problem with that, in some cases it's good, albeit at the expense of the website that gave them t

  • by TheWho79 ( 10289219 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @06:37PM (#66151795)
    They keep calling it a "Search box" in the reporting. I think it is now the "Slop Box".
  • by stabiesoft ( 733417 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @06:49PM (#66151805) Homepage
    by altering my search query with some options, but if this new slop requires me to use AI, I'll just not use goo anymore. I already have duck duck as my default. I found before goo was generating just flat out lies in some of the AI summaries, hence the disable. I prefer to review the raw search result and go to the source for the details.
    • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @07:12PM (#66151839)

      I think you can bypass it by selecting the "Web" option under "More" after submitting your initial query. In any case, the more hoops they make people jump through to avoid getting gagged on their AI crap (like forcing the new "beta" graphs on Google Finance when not logged into Google or using Private browsing) the more reason to switch to something else, like DuckDuckGo or Startpage.

      • We need a tracker: This Google search raised the cost of your computer by $0.02, so far all your Google searches have raised the cost of RAM by 5%

        Bonus points if the AI starts answering contextually: "How much less CO2 would I produce switching to a heatpump?" "Switching to a heatpump is the most carbon efficient form of heating, especially if you use green energy. On the other hand asking this question has offset your savings because Google forced me to respond and my datacentre that worked tirelessly to c

  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @06:52PM (#66151809)

    Step 1: Add your AI to your popular search product.
    Step 2: Take away the ability to search without using the AI.
    Step 3: Tell all your investors "Look how much people are using our AI! They must love it!"

    • The ability to search Google without using LLM is still possible: https://tenbluelinks.org/ [tenbluelinks.org]

      • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        Joe Sixpack isn't going to do follow instructions like that. And the Boomers will be more concerned using some site they've never heard of will cause their bank accounts to be hacked.

        I think there is (was?) a switch you could add to the URL that would bypass the AI response in the results page. So you could set a Firefox Quick Search shortcut with that entered in the template URL. I set up Firefox with UBlock Origin on my mom's smartphone when she complained about all the ads. I believe she changed to using

        • I'm not Joe Sixpack, I don't care if he slops it up. The switch being added to the URL is what's in the link I provided. Did you not read it? Maybe you are Joe Sixpack.

          • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @09:23PM (#66151953)

            The switch being added to the URL is what's in the link I provided. Did you not read it? Maybe you are Joe Sixpack.

            Ah, I was looking at the Firefox instructions.

            Firefox on Windows/MacOS

                    1. Visit TenBlueLinks.org (this page) in Firefox.
                    2. Right-click on the address bar and choose "Add Google Web".
                    3. Open the hamburger menu in the top right corner, choose "Settings -> Search".
                    4. In the "Default Search Engine" section choose "Google Web" from the drop-down menu.
                    5. Done!

            Firefox might show "tenbluelinks.org" as the source where it got the instructions, but all your search queries will be sent directly to Google, not this website. The source code is open, technical details are available below.

            The above instructions are about changing this through the Default Search providers. That's not editing a custom search shortcut [brettterpstra.com]. But, maybe you are not aware of the bookmarklet-like feature? It likely predates you using computers.

            I do see the switch mentioned in the Google Chrome information (&udm=14):

            Chrome on Windows/MacOS

                    1. Open "Settings -> Search engine -> Manage search engines" or copy-paste this in your address bar: chrome://settings/searchEngines
                    2. Next to the "Site search" section click on "Add" button.
                    3. Fill the details in the dialog window:

                    Search engine: Google Web
                    Shortcut: @web
                    URL: {google:baseURL}search?q=%s&udm=14

                    The last line is very important.
                    4. You will see your new search engine "Google Web" in the list. Click on the menu icon next to it and then on "Make default".
                    5. Done!

            You'll have to forgive me. If you're trying to avoid Google AI and you're still using Chrome you've already lost the game. /trollface

        • Joe Sixpack isn't going to do follow instructions like that.

          Forget Joe Sixpack, I will wager 95% of Slashdot neckbeards won't bother with that either. Honestly it's far easier to switch search engines completely.

  • Income stream? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @06:53PM (#66151811) Homepage
    I'm told it real cost money to use in terms of power consumption etc which is usually restricted unless you subscribe for more tokens. So if they are going to waste resources for every search I do what's the game plan to cover the extra cost they are forcing on a routine search?

    - More adverts?
    - Warnings you are reaching you 80% search limits and link to pay for more searches?
    - Something else I didn't want and didn't sign up for?

    I see no good end game for this 'improvement'.
    • Everything will just become a prompt to buy something from a sponsored link. "Therapist in my area" "here's your local options and have you tried 5 gum? It's the best chewing gum ever"
    • I think there is a bit more going on than that. Basically, everything in AI is an accelerated race to the bottom. DeepSeek scared a lot of people because the model's history is actually quite interesting.

      DeepSeek was original an algo for a hedge fund, but the guy says he got a bit altruistic about it. However, when R1 hit it kind of shocked people because it used reinforced learning so well at such a reduced cost to train because you don't need these stupidly large datasets. They went on to do something eve

      • by ukoda ( 537183 )
        For me the most annoy thing about AI is the push that is a service you need to subscribe for as that is where they see the income stream. That does not appeal to people like me are from the era of scarcity and are not sold on the "rent everything and own nothing" mind set. I run my own file servers and email servers etc. I see Hugging face as my best path forward for my future AI needs, all running locally. While I can see use cases for AI for some the stuff I want to do none of those have reached the t
    • I see no good end game for this 'improvement'.

      I do. With any luck it means Google finally realises this AI shit dramatically deteriorates profits and results in a major course revesal for the AI industry as one of the largest players pulls out.

      Yeah I know wishful thinking.

    • by kackle ( 910159 )
      You touched on my topic of concern, the power use, but I was thinking more along the lines of how my simple web searches are now damaging the planet more, when I don't want an AI response every time. Or are they still claiming they are "green"?
    • Google is hoping for economies of scale to kick in. And they are, to an extent. The newest flash models are cheaper than the pro models a year ago.
  • by caseih ( 160668 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @08:06PM (#66151881)

    Google search has been really poor for quite some time. Between SEO rubbish and just the general lack of context in conventional searches, at least half the time search fails to give me relevant results. Also conventional search lacks the ability to fine tune the search with added context. AI Mode may not succeed the first time, but I can add context to my search query, and steer the AI towards the relevant content (including telling it that it hallucinated). It works for me better than the old search. It's not perfect and can fall down spectacularly. For example you asked AI about configuring something specific on your WiFi router of a particular make and model, it assumes that any and all WiFi router information applies when it clearly does not.

    TLDR: conventional search is dead and has been for a long time. AI search actually does work, at least for me.

    • Google killed its own search to promote its AI "search".

      • by karmawarrior ( 311177 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @09:07PM (#66151947) Journal

        It's not "AI search", it'd be useful if it was. One genuinely legitimate use of LLMs would be to filter search results so that when, for example, I search for something like "Linux DAAP client" it doesn't give me a list of DAAP servers and pages on how to set up DAAP servers and so on because webpages that talk about setting up servers inevitably include the word "client" in them for obvious reasons.

        What Google have been doing instead is more LLMsplaining. You ask it for help finding something and instead of helping it inserts its annoying and frequently inaccurate opinions in and only reluctantly will actually give you access to the things you actually asked for.

        Google have decided that that really loud guy in the office who insists on giving you - well, everyone - his opinion on everything is a role model, not an annoying useless tosser.

    • I weep for you. You've got a hard, misinformed life ahead of you.

      • by liqu1d ( 4349325 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @09:53PM (#66151973)
        That's my main concern. Especially when searching things so often you're looking for information you don't know about, to learn. It used to be the first link was all people read and more often than not it would be correct through people citing it on other websites. google ad revenue and SEO killed that and people (mostly) started to become more mistrusting and check out more than one link. Now we have pushed the links away and marketed an all knowing god at the top. This all knowing god uses the SEO spam to present its answers. It has no clue if what it's saying is true or false. It's just taking some sources seemingly selected at random and summarising them. It's scary that people accept it as fact. Even a brief time using it it's so frequently incorrect I cannot trust it for anything I don't know about already or would struggle to confirm. To think how much this tech fucks up the environment on top of all this false information. But it tells me I'm smart and insightful so I must protect it at all costs.
    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2026 @04:57AM (#66152293)

      TLDR: conventional search is dead and has been for a long time. AI search actually does work, at least for me.

      I think you're not taking away the right lesson. The lesson isn't that AI search actually works, it's that Google's conventional search suddenly doesn't. Maybe we should be focusing on that instead of building mega datacentres so that Google can produce software that counters Google's own software enshitification.

      • by caseih ( 160668 )

        Suddenly doesn't work? What are you talking about? Google search hasn't really worked very well for years now even before LLMs.

  • There is still such a massive movement against AI, that there is no shred of hope for AI to take over the web; they don't even serve the same function. This is like suggesting that televising sporting events will kill venue ticket sales.
  • by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @08:57PM (#66151935)

    I've been using startpage.com for so long now that Google changes go completely unnoticed.

  • That's sometimes wrong but presented just as confidently as right. Don't worry though it'll tell you how smart and insightful you are for calling out its mistake that it totally should have caught.
  • Advertslop is a severe problem.

  • Make the "legacy" web only no ai at all an option next
  • Kagi is basically Google without the ads or AI.
    Instead, you pay as few dollars per month.
    Because you are the CUSTOMER, not the product, the incentives are aligned against enshittification.

    There's a free trial that gets you 100 free searches.

    I switched after Google and Bing turned the first page of search results into a minefield of ads posing as relevant links. It was a step backward in quality at the time, but they're pretty close to parity now.

  • Every person or entity who writes things on the web, allows Google to index our content in exchange for bringing visitors to our sites.

    If Google isn't going to hold up their end of that bargain, then we need find a way to stop giving them our content for free.

    It's a very hard problem, I'll admit. But it's a problem that needs to be solved.

    I'm pretty sure a whole lot more content is going to have paywalls in front of it, or registration walls. Until someone finds a better model.

  • by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2026 @05:18AM (#66152307) Homepage
    People switched to Google because it had a nice clean white page with a single search box, while AltaVista was going the 90s fad portal route. Clean interface and simplicity was thee key,

    There's lots of talk about how Google's search algos were better than AltaVista but honestly, at first, they weren't. They were close and they improved, but the loading speed and simplicity advantage that Google had over AltaVista is what bought them time to improve. Remember too that one reason AltaVista was better was that people optimised to be found by it, and not for Google. As time went on, more people learned what Page Rank was (long since gone) and started to optimise for that instead, thus speeding up the switch.

    Lesson: Don't go complex. Don't go shoving extra stuff at people that they haven't asked for. Give them the simplest thing possible, and they will use it.
  • I did a google search, then I wanted to do another related search, google figured out accurately what I wanted on the second one based on the first, and offered as a suggestion exactly the search I had in mind. Could they do this without AI? Maybe, they were doing it before, but rarely did it actually give the suggestion I wanted. I might not have thought anything of it but there were interface appearance changes at the same time.

  • Google search? Are there still people using google search? Haven't used it for years. On the rare occasions I go there, I get only useless rubbish. I thought most people had moved on from that! Even bing is better than google search!
  • I had a brief (6-8 years) as the guy who could find anything online because I was able to leverage my dBase and R:Base query skills into complex searches with Altavista - (this OR that) AND (x OR y OR z) AND (not foo). Then Google came along, and eventually Altavista died.

    What's really frustrating is, Google theoretically has operators for complex searches [spyfu.com] but whenever I try them, their anti-bot gatekeeper tells me I'm obviously not a human because I'm using sophisticated queries.

    • I haven't had anti-bot issues, but I have found that in the past several years, the operators only slightly affect the results, with Google still "helping" you with search terms.
  • Do they accept 'no ads nor paid for results and give me what I ask for, not what you THINK I ask for' ?

Please go away.

Working...