Pretty much what I said, no? You don't use the product and when you do, do it through a filter[1] where you only remember the bugs. Do you use other AI search products and find that they don't show this behavior?
[1] I mean, come on: framing it as "bother not ignoring" is just a dead giveaway that you aren't doing a product evaluation in good faith!
Usually it's non-novel (correctly-harmelessly but unhelpfully, restating the web search results). When it's novel it's because it's wrong.
I would remember the situation where reading the LLM thingy added any value if it ever happened. The weird little UI thing they do where they only show the LLM result if you wait for it to render makes this very easy, I have to scroll up to even consider it.
People are now changing how they search and gather information to use AI. You're automatically discounting that person's experience because they avoid using AI for valid reasons. A lot of times Google AI is outright wrong, not even close to correct. It makes sense to not rely on it and only going back to see if it's improved.
I don't "ignore AI". I just haven't changed how I search and gather information because it's clearly not accurate yet. I still have to fact check it which negates the benefits(time saving). Occasionally I go back to see if it's improved and usually it hasn't. That's not bias.
source: https://blog.google/products/search/google-search-ai-mode-up...
The UI is just horrible and a huge waste of space. I had to use a user style to make it a non-headache to use.
Kagi routinely lacks results that every other search engine I use get no problem. I can't give any examples but I found myself going to page 5+ more often on Kagi than any other service.
I have no problem with the UI. It's snappy, clean, doesn't have a bunch of cruft, it's easy to find results, etc. It feels like Google of yore.
Same thing with the search results, I find them really excellent. In my experience, there's much less SEO spam. If you search for a programming language function, you get links to the proper documentation, not some trash "geeksforgeeks" site or whatever. I can't remember if I've ever had to go past page one.
Obviously YMMV on that, it's entirely possible it's different depending on what you're searching for. But I'm very happy paying for Kagi, and will continue to do so.
In terms of "best on the market" for AI search, I know that I am much more likely to trust the one that seems more like a direct summary of the stuff the search engine is traditionally responding with (and presumably has been well tuned in the last several decades) versus the one more likely to make stuff up or to leave the realm of what you are actually asking for some other search it thinks is better for you.
Though admittedly that's a very personal judgment call; some people want the assistant to search for "what they really mean" rather than "what they asked for". It's also a lot of gut vibes from how these AIs write about their research and some of that can be hallucinations and lies and "prompt optimization" as much or more than any sort of "best on the market" criteria.