The 37M/day is an estimate from Rand Fishkin that often gets quoted as gospel. It is based on limited external data. OpenAI mentioned 1B/day - and had significant overall growth in usage since then.

Also, 1 search on ChatGPT easily replaces 5-10 searches on Google.

Many B2B SaaS companies already get the same amount of leads from ChatGPT that they get from Google. Because clicks from ChatGPT are better informed and have a significantly higher conversion rate. I am talking up to +700% CVR vs traffic from Google for some companies.

But users are not clicking on search results in google. They get satisfying response from Gemini & end there. It is a good thing for users but bad for inbound traffic to websites.

1. (Anecdotal) I'm barely using Google anymore. I'm using ChatGPT for a ton of queries and getting far better results.

2. Antitrust actions might (should) strip Google of their "panes of glass" with which they force Google Search as the default. Most Google Search queries are simply the result of defaults. Once those defaults are gone, those queries will go elsewhere.

To add on top of this, how many Google searches also contain Gemini answers in the search results? I've been seeing more and more, especially for code and general factoid searches.

Yet.

And even that ignores Google runs an LLM on their search too.

splitting these are not a good measure. people who know how to search (a skill the latter generations seem to have lost) also searched for the lowest common denominator coding recipes and produced naive code just like people do with current llm models. only sellers of the llm models make the distinction. it's all search.

Yep. It won't be long before the web is flooded with pages full of AI-generated content repeatedly mentioning brands near keywords, and "search engines" have been replaced by "summaries" monetized by prompt-stuffing. That's pretty much the extent of these people's genius.

EDIT: I guess the final step is for an "AI agent" to enter your credit card number based on this bot-chat.

Yep, I was discussing it with my partner a few months ago. It is just too good right now, in a lot of cases you just slip past all the fluff which are impossible to avoid with traditional search.

The opportunities for AI providers to capitalize on that are too prominent. No idea how long it will take, but imo it's inevitable.

Yep. Google is an ad company that makes most of its money putting ads on its search page, and Gemini is a Google product that lets you get search results from Google without ads. It doesn't make any sense.

you're literally commenting on a press release by the greediest vc firm. would you care to elaborate your point?

my "marketing and propaganda", do you mean "other AI model output"?

The internet was pretty bad without AI already, but I can see it heading quickly towards complete nonsense and lack of trust. We are going to have all the same problems we had before AI, but multiplied 100x

The only good thing about SEO (yuck) is it got some people to care about things that are good for humans too: fast pages, well-structured content, descriptive link text, etc.

I think the concept of SEO is fine. But the problem comes down to metric hacking.

Certainly you want to make your page easier to index by Google and others, but that's not the only thing that matters. You should improve your content and provide a good product to users. That's what Google intends to measure, but such a thing is actually impossible to do so accurately. So the problem comes down to this stupid cat and mouse game where sites happily shill out links that are immediate turnarounds for users.

I think this is larger than just search. We seem to just be optimizing towards whatever metric we've decided should be used. We then fool ourselves into thinking this proxy actually measures the real thing.

Unlike classic search, which got worse over time due to SEO gamings, AI search might actually improve with scale. If LLMs are trained on real internet discussions (Reddit, forums, reviews), and your product consistently gets called out as bad, the model will eventually reflect that. The pressure shifts from optimizing content to improving the product itself.

Not too different from how SEO ends. Just spammy content written by bots.

there would have to be some added element of human interaction for a a feedback mechanism.

Unfortunately this will be profit driven, rather than something like human enjoyment or insight or something

Or wildly misinterpreting a source. A few months ago, I saw an especially egregious example where, when asked for the maximum current capacity of a 22 AWG copper wire, Google's AI responded confidently with "551 amps".

The correct answer is two orders of magnitude lower, around 5-7 A. 551 A is the fusing current of that wire - i.e. the current required to make it instantly melt.

Absolute review count suggests otherwise.

Maybe content marketing ins’t dead after all. Just the readers have shifted and now you write for LLMs. They will be trained on your articles, to summarize them for LLM readers (aka humans).

How is ellm different from the more established tools in the market (Profound and Peec AI)?

Definitely a bit buggy but looks promising! Try the onboarding flow yourself as a real user (also on mobile!) - particularly leaving the site to research a competitor that is mentioned and then coming back (I got kicked out and had to start from the beginning, at which point it just paywalled me)

It also says I have canceled my subscription at the bottom of the paywall when I never had one. Still, these are little things and I think the bones are theee