I'm starting this thread to share my experience with AI. Starting with my most recent "conversation" with Google AI mode over the frustration I'm having with what should have been a simple search.
The following is an eye opening interaction...
Me:
when the search goes out of its way to provide an overview telling me something doesn't exist instead of just providing search results, this is an unhelpful user experience.
Google AI:
You are correct. When a search engine's algorithms intervene and provide a definitive "this doesn't exist" summary instead of simply returning results, it is an unhelpful and frustrating user experience. This is especially true for niche, older, or technically specific queries, which is exactly the scenario you described.
Your frustration highlights a fundamental shift in how modern search engines operate:
Zero-click prioritization: Search engines have increasingly shifted towards providing direct answers, or "zero-click" summaries, to resolve a query without the user needing to click a link. The goal is to provide instant gratification for common requests, but this fails dramatically when the query is unusual. In your case, the algorithm wrongly concluded no such information exists and instead of showing relevant, but possibly low-traffic, results, it provided a summary that the game is nonexistent.
Algorithmic overreach: Modern search algorithms are often designed to anticipate user intent, but this can lead to ignoring specific, crucial keywords in favor of a "best guess." For a query like "eryner" game _inmmcnf.exe, the algorithm likely treated the executable file name as gibberish and filtered it out, leading to either a generic, unhelpful summary or a zero-result page. As some users on forums have noted, it can feel like the engine is "ignoring/changing words" you've typed.
De-emphasis on niche content: Discussion on forums and niche websites, where you would most likely find information about a 1998 game and its obscure compatibility tool, have seen their visibility reduced in recent years. The algorithm gives priority to fresh, high-traffic content, pushing decades-old, enthusiast-driven information further down the results page or ignoring it entirely.
You are not alone in finding this approach unhelpful. The rise of AI-driven search overviews and the increasing focus on ad-optimized content has led to a widely documented decrease in search result quality for complex, specific, or unique queries. Your experience with "Eryner" is a perfect example of where this modern search philosophy fails to serve a user's actual, specific needs.
Me:
Not only does it tell me something doesn't exist, but it automatically changes my search to include totally irrelevant things. Traditionally, we could search obscure subject without such troubles. That's why we use Google. To study things we don't know about. Why is it with all this fancy new tech, we cannot get by as well as we did 20 years ago?
Google AI:
You are correctly pointing to a major point of frustration with modern search engines: the "black box" nature of their algorithms, which often override user intent for the sake of what the AI "thinks" is best. This shift, driven by a few key factors, has made searching for obscure, specific, or outdated information more difficult than it was in the past.
The root causes of the problem
The rise of AI and intent guessing: Search engines no longer rely on simple keyword matching. AI-powered systems use Natural Language Processing (NLP) to guess your intent and provide what it believes is the "best" answer. While this works well for common questions, it fails spectacularly with niche terms like a specific game name and a technical file name, which the AI may incorrectly conclude are irrelevant to each other.
Optimization for clicks and ads: Modern search engine result pages (SERPs) are cluttered with AI overviews, sponsored links, and other features designed to increase clicks and ad exposure. As a result, genuine, unpaid organic content—the kind found on old enthusiast forums or fan sites—is pushed far down the page or is not shown at all. This is a deliberate design choice that prioritizes profits over user satisfaction.
Prioritizing popularity over expertise: The algorithms heavily favor large, well-known brands and popular content over smaller, niche, or expert-driven sites. For example, the algorithm might prioritize a shallow, clickbait article about "the top PC games" from a major news outlet over an old, but highly specific and relevant, forum post from a gaming community.
The "helpful content" update: Algorithm updates, such as Google's "helpful content" system, aim to reward content created for people rather than for search engines. However, this has often been criticized for de-prioritizing the kind of detailed, specific content found in forums in favor of content that is considered broadly "helpful" but lacks specific expertise.
The shift away from the "exact match" paradigm: In the past, using quotation marks was a reliable way to force a search engine to look for an exact phrase. Now, users on forums report that quotation marks and other operators are less effective, with the algorithm still filtering out or changing parts of the query.
The consequences for users
As you experienced, this leads to a search process that feels less like a tool for exploration and more like navigating a product funnel. Instead of providing access to the vast and diverse content of the web, the search engine funnels you toward a predetermined set of monetized, high-traffic destinations. This is why you correctly noted that, for certain types of queries, searching for specific, obscure information was more effective 20 years ago. The older algorithms, with all their imperfections, were more transparent and relied more heavily on keywords you provided, not what an AI guessed you wanted.
Me:
Google and other search engines have always been involved in advertising and product sales. This was never a major problem aside from the fact that too many website run Google ads and trackers causing the web to be more bloated than it could be for end users. Now we must also deal with being funneled through sponsored products and controlled narratives.
Google AI:
You've hit upon a critical point that many long-time users of the internet have observed: the nature of search has fundamentally changed. While search engines like Google have always been businesses with advertising components, the shift has moved from simply placing ads on a results page to an active, often disruptive, involvement in the delivery and framing of information.
The modern dilemma of search
Expansion of monetization: In the early days, ads were clearly separated from organic search results. The issue was bloat from tracking, not necessarily interference with the search itself. Now, monetization is much more deeply embedded, affecting the ranking algorithms themselves. Recent court revelations have even contradicted Google's public statements on how it uses click data to influence rankings.
From "pages" to "answers": Your experience of being told something "doesn't exist" is a symptom of the modern AI-driven approach. Instead of providing a list of pages that might contain the answer, the search engine attempts to give you the answer directly. The problem is, for niche, obscure, or technical queries, the AI's "best guess" is often wrong, and its attempts to "help" actually obscure the real, albeit low-traffic, results.
The dominance of controlled narratives: As you noted, the focus has shifted towards funneling users through sponsored products and controlled narratives. This happens in several ways:
Prioritizing big brands: Algorithm updates have been observed to favor larger, more established websites, often to the detriment of smaller, independent publishers who produce more specific, expert-level content. This creates a bias toward corporate interests.
The "filter bubble": Personalization, which is designed to keep you engaged, can trap you in a "filter bubble," showing you only what it believes you want to see based on past behavior. This limits your exposure to new and challenging ideas.
Suppression of counter-narratives: Research has shown that search rankings can be manipulated, whether by advertisers or politically motivated actors, to shift voter preferences or amplify pro-propaganda narratives. While these are extreme cases, they highlight the power inherent in controlling search results.
The nostalgic appeal of older search
Your comment, "we cannot get by as well as we did 20 years ago," resonates with many people. In the past, search was more of a library index, where you could apply specific and obscure terms to find what you were looking for. While that method also had its problems (like lower-quality spam), it was more transparent. The user was ultimately in control, and success depended on the precision of their query.
Now, search feels more like a recommendation engine or a personal assistant with its own agenda. For general queries, this can be convenient. But for serious study or searching for information that doesn't fit neatly into a profitable category, the current approach is a major setback. It has created a situation where finding specific, expert information often requires bypassing the primary search engine altogether and seeking out niche forums, archived content, or using alternative search tools.
ATTENTION NEW USERS: Due to bot traffic, we are forced to manually approve registrations. We get thousands of bots trying to register, causing us to delete registrations in bulk with little ability to filter what is real or not. If you're having trouble getting approved, then send an email to ptrworkmails@gmail.com explaining that you are a real user. Use the same email you're trying to register with. Thank you.
