I have of course tried to search for this, but if you include the word 'AI' in a search, most search engines believe you are in fact searching for AI.
From the homepage:
This search engine isn't particularly well equipped to answering queries posed like questions, instead try to imagine some text that might appear in the website you are looking for, and search for that.
Where this search engine really shines is finding small, old and obscure websites about some given topic, perhaps old video games, a mystery, theology, the occult, knitting, computer science, or art.LLMs/GPTs/whatever are a threat to search engines and the web because the modern web is an unbelievably annoying dumpster fire. They don't really provide better or faster answers, what they provide is an experience that is less annoying. This frog has been simmering for a long while now and we're so used to it that seeing literally anything else seems revolutionary.
You visit a website and need to dismiss a cookie policy notification, a request to show popups, a request to know your location, an invitation to subscribe to a newsletter, a sales rep wants to have a chat with you, then you get random layout shifts for several minutes as all the ad auctions finish, and then just as you're ready to read the content the website crashes and reloads and the circus starts over again. You try to leave, and it hijacks your back button into a redirect loop.
All of this is of course intentional, because it makes you stay on the page longer so that Google thinks you're reading the content. It's a fractal of dark patterns that's made for humans in the same sense a zoo is made for animals.
If anything, there's a glimmer of hope AI may fix this by flooding the bullshit market with so much low effort crap everyone doing this runs out of business.
Blogs, personal websites and stuff made by humans are probably the least affected by this.
You are describing the future of LLM/GPT search!
For example EU wants your first step to be implemented on LLM/GPT with also a step you missed: Certify you are not a minor [0]
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/17/eu-lawmakers-call-for-rules-...
Until maybe the AI gets trained enough to emulate the styles of famous authors (which it already does for a few like Paul Graham etc).
But you are absolutely right how terrible the web search has been. I absolutely hate SEO recommended results. Thank you very much for Marginalia. I've been using it to discover text-only content rich websites.
Yeah I actually don't think this is a problem. There just isn't much incentive to emulating a personal website. Maybe someone will, but they don't get much traffic and don't make any money.
Machine Learning algorithms, which include some really straight-forward ones like decision trees, linear regression, support vector machines, etc. are pretty ubiquitous.
If you mean generative AI models (e.g. what powers ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc.) then it's a different story.
These have always been considered AI, and I don’t see any reason that would change. E.g. https://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/contents.html
The definition of an intelligent decision appears as such: A choice or conclusion made after carefully considering various factors, options, and potential outcomes.
If those conclusions are made ahead of time and baked it, does it make any real difference if nobody can tell from the outside? I think not. It's safe to say there's a lot of intelligent decisions in any software in existence.
Wait, it's all AI?
Always has been.
What OP's probably really trying to say is they don't want to use black box AI of sufficient complexity that nobody alive knows how any of it works. That's the only real hard distinction I guess?
Do you want to avoid the company engaging with AI? (Maybe because you don't want your searches being used as training.)
Do you want to avoid LLMs answering your search? I have not seen that widely adopted at all.
Depending on what you consider "AI" the answer might range from all of them to none of them are using AI.
As you didn't provide a list of applicable search engines, maybe you just proved my point: There are no general purpose search engines that do not employ 'AI' in one form or the other.
I know there are several definitions of AI, so maybe this is really difficult to answer.
This hasn't been a thing for a long time, possibly never was.
No, I asked a question to clarify what you want because I find it difficult to understand your problem with search engines right now. All search engines I used recently, including Bing, produce a list of links.
I can make assumptions about what you mean by AI, as it is the hot topic these days, maybe you talk about chatGPT style Large Language Models (LLMs) usage in search engines. Although, only Bing seems to do that right now and only in addition to traditional search. Traditional search is not neccessarily "AI free" depending on how we classify various algorithms and strategies.
> I want to ensure valid and correct search results
In my mind, the correctness of the information within the linked websites has little todo with AI usage of the search engine. Most search results I encounter are valid and correct in the form of the linked website existing and actually having content related to my search.
Modern LLMs might actually be one of the few strategies to actually check correctness of search results at a large scale!
> Do you want to avoid LLMs answering your search? I have not seen that widely adopted at all.
It's starting to get more though. The brief answers that sometimes show up right beneath the search term will most likely get improved by leveraging LLMs.
[1] https://kagi.com
Asking questions in forums has been a habit I picked up recently.
The process of writing it down and describing it to other people really helps a lot than I expected.
AI has been diluted to a point where we need to specify artificial general intelligence (AGI) when we want to refer to AI in the classical sense.
To my knowledge, no search engine, or any other tech is powered by an AGI.
And that's true, if you think of AI as the computer science disciplin. All these things, even machine learning, is part of the broader umbrella of what computer science considers to be part of AI research field.
There's just a rather large difference in "being part of AI research" and actually being an AI. I'd argue that when your phone says it's using AI to help take better photos, then it more branding that AI. Sure they took the technology from the AI research field, but it's not an AI.
To use it you have to crawl the web first though.