Disagree. In my experience particularly over the last few weeks, Gemini has gotten very good at understanding what i'm asking for and giving a relevant response that 9 times out of 10 just answers my question without me having to go further into the relevant wiki link etc.

People say this a lot, and part of me wants it to be true and hates this AI search stuff being shoved in my face, but this really hasn't been my experience.

Unless I'm searching for something very niche, I'm often quite surprised by how 'directionally right' Google's AI overview is, even if I retain a lot of the skepticism I had towards it.

It's mostly wrong, if you dig a little bit into the supplied references.

It sucked at first, I definitely got some wild responses from the AI helper at Google Search, but they seem to have bumped up the model capability over the last couple months. It's surprisingly pretty good now. Sometimes I'll use Claude instead, but for little things I've been pretty happy with the quick result from Googling.

I wondered how Claude would do on non-coding/math questions. I want to replace the front end of my truck, from ball joints to bumper, and Claude was hopeless. It didn’t even know bumper weights, what kind of suspension I have, and more. Gemini nailed everything, giving detailed and correct information on how to replace everything including the problematic (on my truck) driver’s side upper control arm. Replacement bumper weights and costs were correct. Even the welding advice was right.

I still find Claude better for learning math but I won’t use it for other everyday things again.

This is why Kagi and Kagi Assistant is the "next-level" of web search. Well worth every cent spent on the subscription. Even in the AI era.

Google’s AI mode is roughly the same as using the free ChatGPT web app (both without logging in). Of course they use a lower-intelligence model for free users. They are certainly worse than real AI subscriptions. I do the same thing you did: only use it for basics and low-stake things, and it’s good enough for basics.

> Google's AI search is abysmal and is almost always, at least, 30% wrong

Different experience for me, IMO AI mode saved Google search. The classic search became pretty much worthless due to decades of SEO winning over good results. But AI mode made Google search far more useful for me and gives me what I'm looking for 99.9% of the time.

I do understand some people (website operators who used to rely on SEO or google stockholders after the recent earnings report) being upset about AI mode, but as a search user I find it much more effective than where search was just prior to AI mode.

Other AI search products are so good. I’m not sure why Google is still so far behind. You can feel Gemini struggle in in the new Siri too, it’s awful

Like the sibling, I can't really agree with this. Google is now quite good at answering general queries and doing simple calculations, which is a big step up from its capabilities a few years ago. For example, you can ask

> What is the equivalent focal length on APS-C of 80mm on full frame?

and get the correct answer. It's not good compared to frontier AI models, but that's to be expected, given that you don't pay for it.

Honestly, AI search(Google or ChatGPT etc) has been fresh breeze of air because the web itself has been stinky pile of garbage with some forgotten gems in it since the last 15 years. Younger people never seen non-garbage website.

Dont use search but Gemini flash is excellent when I don't use kagi.