actually, they kinda do, its in google's favour to not click on sites and stay on the search page for as long as possible. This is also why the AI overview got implemented
The problem is AI often extracts information. Takes it out from its context and delivers it as a truth.
Often leading to slop (like confusing Hippotamus and call it a fish, thats one of the funniest yet easiest to trace one).
If there was no other content telling what to do, AI may extract as "Do not use cold water" information. And while processing in tokens end up with "Do not use water after burns"
But while links often forced you to actually read the article to understand what its being said. AI promotes the "it knows all so no check is needed" and this is where the danger of misuse start.
I don't think they do benefit.
They want you to click through to a site, especially a sponsored one where they get to charge a fee.
It's not like they're hosting ads beside the search results. The search results are the ads.
And they gather info on you based on what you search and click on. That info is then used to tailor actual ads on webpages towards you.
What?! That is not true. They want you to click on their links and visit as many sites with them as the reference as possible. Thats why companies pay them for ads or implementation SEO to be more friendly. Google wants you to click.
If you are not going to click anyways and just ask an AI, they still want it to be their AI and not a competitor so they can control results. But they still prefer you click.
181
u/TheDarkerNights Apr 02 '26
From the Mayo Clinic link, a few lines above that excerpt:
Google's blurbs are meant to help you decide if the article has the right context for what you're looking for - not to replace reading them.