In general, do you support the introduction of AI Overviews into Google Search results?

👍 Yes (25%) – "Something has to be done about the current state of search engines. They are really so bad. I’m a software engineer so I use them about eight hours a day and I can tell you they just aren’t as effective as they were 8 years ago. The internet is just loaded with so much bot created trash content now."

• "As a consumer, I like the idea of having an overview for the lengthy search results. However, it may kill the marketing process when bringing traffic becomes even more challenging."

👎 No (48%) – "When researching, a source's credibility is paramount (authority, currency, bias, relevancy). Although Google says their articles will include “citations” (where each piece of information within the response comes from), I wonder if Google really means, “sources” (the list of sources drawn from, not separated per piece of information). Knowing if a response, or which part of a response, to a medical query comes from the Mayo Clinic or National Institute of Health, peer reviewed journal, popular magazine, or blog is important. How AI determines its sources’ credibility is something those using the AI responses should consider. As for me, although I may consider an AI response in the same vein as a Wikipedia overview, I will move on to links to experts in the field, or simply modify me search to get to those reliable sources themselves."

• "I prefer to conduct my own research and dive into resources to understand what I am looking for and determining myself if the information is useful. This just seems to be one more way for me to get frustrated with technology in conducting research."

"I haven't cared for most of the Google search "improvements" recently. I just want a list of websites that I can scan and click through based on which if my keywords match. Luckily there are other search engines, and I can take my web traffic elsewhere."

• "AI has already eliminated the need for human touch and autonomy in a growing percentage of the workforce. But to think that AI could even be eliminating the need to scan a website to get a few nuggets of information is going a bit too far. Sure, it’ll limit the amount of time that it takes to find the information that a person would need, but how much further does this new technology need to expand until it just becomes the new medium, not an optional add-on that can be ignored?"

"AI is poor and thinking ahead for real people, and it frustrated the processes. My concern is that search criteria will become further controlled and more limited as a result."

🤷 Unsure/other (27%) – "As a consumer, I would like it because it makes information more concise. However, as a publisher I’m not happy about this idea because I think it would reduce the traffic coming to my website"

• "I don’t want more misinformation than necessary online. AI isn’t perfect at correctly gathering data. I feel like now we are going to need to teach kids that the summaries are similar to the Wikipedia info that isn’t always reliable because it can be edited."

"There is a lot of choices coming back in search results today. To summarize this and give me a list of citations is helpful. Yet, I'm concerned that the summary is performed according to someone else's rules and will filter potentially controversial or "against the narrative" content I want to see and assess for myself. So, that's not helpful."