AI bots have taken over the internet

Bamb0 · 8 Jun 2026, 09:41 PM

More AI bot traffic than human traffic now.
AI bots account for 57% of internet traffic.

We are now in the "Age of the Machine"

http://www.cnet.com/tech/services-an...eal-people-do/

Very scary and sad... These stupid AI things are making it even harder for older browsers to get to sites!!

I have had it

Tsunami · 9 Jun 2026, 01:08 AM

You cannot avoid it, but you can choose to use it to limited extent.

I ask questions to ChatGPT and Gemini, but only if they are really important (like: on a scale of importantness to me, they have to score at least 8 our of 10) AND if I could not find the answers after reading up several articles and asking around on regular discussion forums. Only if I cannot find the answer there, and it's really important, then I will turn to AI.

I was actually trying to avoid AI entirely but it becomes harder and harder, it's fully integrated with Google search engine for example. But I still try to only use it for the rare questions that I find very important and where I cannot find a clear answer elsewhere.

I would never use AI for creating silly images or videos for social media, or to write letters or articles on my behalf. You still have to think about the environment, and AI servers require a lot of energy. Use within dosage and not for silly things like creating images or videos solely for fun. Think ecologically.

Also, from an artistic point of view... I could easily ask AI to write my poems and articles on behalf of me, but I won't do it. Part of what makes arts nice is the artistic process. If I'd use AI for it, I'd miss the creative process.

Totally avoiding it seems no longer possible. If we have to live with it: then fine, use it when it's important, but within reason. Don't use it too frequently, don't use it for funny things or unimportant things.

Also, of course AI isn't all bad. For the academical and medical field it is great. I just read the other day in a Belgian paper that AI has managed to create a formula for a vaccine that works with virtually all known viruses to date. If human scientists conclude that the AI-created formula is indeed realistic to use, then this is an example of how AI can help humanity.

Just don't use it for the sake of creating silly pictures to put on your socials.

hadaso · 9 Jun 2026, 07:36 AM

Soon after Google came, people started using Google and only Google. Before that, one would scroll through pages and pages of Alta Vista search result to look for something relevant, or go to Yahoo that manually categorized websites, but naturally had relatively few of them. Then came Google and practically always had relevant results on the first page, often the first or second result. So why bother going to the second page of search results or use the search engines that make you scroll through several pages of search results?

Nowadays with your Google search you get an AI summary, and most of the times it gives a full answer to what you're asking, so why bother scrolling even the first page of search results and checking those links and looking for answers within those websites? You already got the answer from the AI agent. So people will spend much less time following links from search results, except those referenced from within the AI response.

I use Google search much more than in the past, just because of the answers I immediately get from the AI. I select some text and right-click and select "search" and immediately I get several paragraphs of text explaining that text. I select things I write before I post and use Google search to see what the AI agent has to say about what I wrote. If it's irrelevant I know I haven't phrased it well. Often it would point to wrong or questionable facts. And I ask the AI to correct my English, because I am not as fluent as I used to be.

I agree that using AI to create art instead of you is silly. You make art to express yourself, or because you have the urge to do it: you can't avoid it. But using it as an assistant I think is OK, and you can achieve this way things otherwise you would not be able to achieve. A director directs actors. Not all directors can act themselves (or act well enough to please themselves). When you create literature you usually have an editor that makes suggestions (or demands) and can be a big influence on the wring process. These days you can have an AI agent act as your editor, and it may have an influence on your creation, just like a human editor can have. The end result is yours. You choose what to keep. As long as you are the one making the choices it is your creation. The AI agent is a tool.

And about ecology: I don't believe the dosage of one's usage is a factor. The limiting factor is the budget of the companies that supply the tools (to free users). I you don't use it they'll just allot the resources you haven't used to other uses. If more people use it, each one on average would be allotted less resources (less "thinking time" per prompt). In the end they use all the resources they can afford and what they learn from this (free) usage goes on to develop the next model, that would achieve more with the same amount of resources.

What the article linked in the OP means is that people now do not follow the links in search results because what the AI summary tells them is good enough. The AI agents browse the websites in the search results and summarize them and you don't have to do the work yourself, unless you're looking for more details or need to verify the correctness of the summarized info. and Cloudflare data reflects this.

dryoldlime · 9 Jun 2026, 09:11 AM

hadaso,

I still look at most of the listed found links and their descriptions if any. No strong reliance here on A.I.

JeremyNicoll · 9 Jun 2026, 09:33 AM

Regarding Google's AI summary - I'd rather turn it off ... but if that's possible at all one probably has to log-in to Google first - which I don't want to do.

A lot of what I google for is sufficiently technical that it's quite hard to get the right nuance into the few words I ask Google to search for (& note that as a matter of course I use its 'advanced' search page). Its summary often approaches a problem I'm interested-in from a different angle than that that concerns me. If eg it points me at StackOverflow pages I'll read the whole of each of them - because the various posts will point out subtleties that matter to me that the AI (by omission) implied don't exist.

chrisretusn · 9 Jun 2026, 03:13 PM

If I can, I turn it off. If I can't turn it off, then I do what I can to disable it.

I have a Samsung Galaxy S25 FE, I has Galaxy IA, every thing in Settings > Galaxy AI is turned off. If I can Disable an app the might be related to AI I do so. Gemini is disabled along with several other apps. While I occasional talk to my phone, usually using words that I can use here, I do not want my phone talking to me.

Computer, I use Slackware Linux, no AI. I will not install any program AI related.

It is off in Firefox. I use Brave Search, it has a summary function like Google does, they say it's AI, like Google does. I don't see it as AI, I see it as an enhanced search. It is not always right, even with technical related and history related stuff.

I asked this question using Brave Search "accuracy of braves summary search" (Bold is mine):

Quote:

Brave Search Summarizer accuracy is characterized by high factual grounding due to its reliance on an independent index of over 30 billion pages, yet it is not infallible. The system uses three distinct Large Language Models (LLMs) to extract, classify, and synthesize information directly from web sources, citing original links to ensure transparency and accountability.

Key performance metrics and limitations include:

Source Attribution: Unlike generative AI chat tools that may "hallucinate" or fabricate responses, the Summarizer aggregates existing web content, allowing users to verify claims against cited sources.

Coverage: Summaries are generated for approximately 17% to 33% of queries (depending on the timeframe and feature rollout), focusing on queries where multiple sources can be synthesized into a concise answer.

Technical Performance: In benchmarks for AI grounding, Brave Search API demonstrated 90.78% accuracy (F1: 92.1%) in single-search configurations, outperforming several competitors in resolving questions with minimal latency.

Potential Inaccuracies: Brave acknowledges that summaries may occasionally contain inaccuracies, rumors, or false claims if the selected source material is flawed. Users are advised to maintain critical thinking and verify information, especially for complex or nuanced topics.

Independence: The system uses Brave-owned and operated models rather than third-party APIs, ensuring privacy and reducing reliance on external providers like OpenAI.

AI-generated answer. Please verify critical facts.

SideshowBob · 10 Jun 2026, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bamb0

These stupid AI things are making it even harder for older browsers to get to sites!!

Are you referring to captchas?

Bamb0 · 10 Jun 2026, 11:32 AM

Yes those and blacklisting you unless your running a certain browser,etc...

Tsunami · 11 Jun 2026, 12:37 AM

The risk of using an old (outdated) browser or using a http:// protocol over a https:// protocol is of course up to every person to take.
But there is of course a reason why some services insist on https:// and why Microsoft does not support certain old browsers anymore.

Things evolve. 2FA is now recommended to anyone, even if you're an anonymous person without plans to reach for the spotlights. About 15 years ago there was no such thing as 2FA and you just had to rely on strong login credentials.

Things evolve constantly. I don't like all those changes myself, because I am so used to work with certain browsers or systems. But I would assume there is a reason why this is constantly changing. Even if this means having to get used to a new browser type or now system. I don't like those changes either, but once I get used to them it's OK. And they're more or less forced on you, Microsoft for example simply doesn't support certain older browsers or Windows versions anymore.

chrisretusn · 11 Jun 2026, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bamb0

Yes those and blacklisting you unless your running a certain browser,etc...

I have never run into blacklisting. One site recommends Chrome 72 or later or Edge 80 or later. Still allows me in with Firefox. Which really has nothing to do with AI.

Social media is full of AI generated slop.

8 Jun 2026, 09:41 PM	#1
Bamb0 The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,371	More AI bot traffic than human traffic now. AI bots account for 57% of internet traffic. We are now in the "Age of the Machine" http://www.cnet.com/tech/services-an...eal-people-do/ Very scary and sad... These stupid AI things are making it even harder for older browsers to get to sites!! I have had it

9 Jun 2026, 01:08 AM	#2
Tsunami The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: in between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown Posts: 2,618	You cannot avoid it, but you can choose to use it to limited extent. I ask questions to ChatGPT and Gemini, but only if they are really important (like: on a scale of importantness to me, they have to score at least 8 our of 10) AND if I could not find the answers after reading up several articles and asking around on regular discussion forums. Only if I cannot find the answer there, and it's really important, then I will turn to AI. I was actually trying to avoid AI entirely but it becomes harder and harder, it's fully integrated with Google search engine for example. But I still try to only use it for the rare questions that I find very important and where I cannot find a clear answer elsewhere. I would never use AI for creating silly images or videos for social media, or to write letters or articles on my behalf. You still have to think about the environment, and AI servers require a lot of energy. Use within dosage and not for silly things like creating images or videos solely for fun. Think ecologically. Also, from an artistic point of view... I could easily ask AI to write my poems and articles on behalf of me, but I won't do it. Part of what makes arts nice is the artistic process. If I'd use AI for it, I'd miss the creative process. Totally avoiding it seems no longer possible. If we have to live with it: then fine, use it when it's important, but within reason. Don't use it too frequently, don't use it for funny things or unimportant things. Also, of course AI isn't all bad. For the academical and medical field it is great. I just read the other day in a Belgian paper that AI has managed to create a formula for a vaccine that works with virtually all known viruses to date. If human scientists conclude that the AI-created formula is indeed realistic to use, then this is an example of how AI can help humanity. Just don't use it for the sake of creating silly pictures to put on your socials.

9 Jun 2026, 07:36 AM	#3
hadaso Intergalactic Postmaster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Holon, Israel. Posts: 5,217	Soon after Google came, people started using Google and only Google. Before that, one would scroll through pages and pages of Alta Vista search result to look for something relevant, or go to Yahoo that manually categorized websites, but naturally had relatively few of them. Then came Google and practically always had relevant results on the first page, often the first or second result. So why bother going to the second page of search results or use the search engines that make you scroll through several pages of search results? Nowadays with your Google search you get an AI summary, and most of the times it gives a full answer to what you're asking, so why bother scrolling even the first page of search results and checking those links and looking for answers within those websites? You already got the answer from the AI agent. So people will spend much less time following links from search results, except those referenced from within the AI response. I use Google search much more than in the past, just because of the answers I immediately get from the AI. I select some text and right-click and select "search" and immediately I get several paragraphs of text explaining that text. I select things I write before I post and use Google search to see what the AI agent has to say about what I wrote. If it's irrelevant I know I haven't phrased it well. Often it would point to wrong or questionable facts. And I ask the AI to correct my English, because I am not as fluent as I used to be. I agree that using AI to create art instead of you is silly. You make art to express yourself, or because you have the urge to do it: you can't avoid it. But using it as an assistant I think is OK, and you can achieve this way things otherwise you would not be able to achieve. A director directs actors. Not all directors can act themselves (or act well enough to please themselves). When you create literature you usually have an editor that makes suggestions (or demands) and can be a big influence on the wring process. These days you can have an AI agent act as your editor, and it may have an influence on your creation, just like a human editor can have. The end result is yours. You choose what to keep. As long as you are the one making the choices it is your creation. The AI agent is a tool. And about ecology: I don't believe the dosage of one's usage is a factor. The limiting factor is the budget of the companies that supply the tools (to free users). I you don't use it they'll just allot the resources you haven't used to other uses. If more people use it, each one on average would be allotted less resources (less "thinking time" per prompt). In the end they use all the resources they can afford and what they learn from this (free) usage goes on to develop the next model, that would achieve more with the same amount of resources. What the article linked in the OP means is that people now do not follow the links in search results because what the AI summary tells them is good enough. The AI agents browse the websites in the search results and summarize them and you don't have to do the work yourself, unless you're looking for more details or need to verify the correctness of the summarized info. and Cloudflare data reflects this.

9 Jun 2026, 09:11 AM	#4
dryoldlime Essential Contributor Join Date: Aug 2023 Posts: 295	hadaso, I still look at most of the listed found links and their descriptions if any. No strong reliance here on A.I.

9 Jun 2026, 09:33 AM	#5
JeremyNicoll Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Dec 2017 Location: Scotland Posts: 859	Regarding Google's AI summary - I'd rather turn it off ... but if that's possible at all one probably has to log-in to Google first - which I don't want to do. A lot of what I google for is sufficiently technical that it's quite hard to get the right nuance into the few words I ask Google to search for (& note that as a matter of course I use its 'advanced' search page). Its summary often approaches a problem I'm interested-in from a different angle than that that concerns me. If eg it points me at StackOverflow pages I'll read the whole of each of them - because the various posts will point out subtleties that matter to me that the AI (by omission) implied don't exist.

10 Jun 2026, 11:32 AM	#8
Bamb0 The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,371	Yes those and blacklisting you unless your running a certain browser,etc...

11 Jun 2026, 12:37 AM	#9
Tsunami The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: in between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown Posts: 2,618	The risk of using an old (outdated) browser or using a http:// protocol over a https:// protocol is of course up to every person to take. But there is of course a reason why some services insist on https:// and why Microsoft does not support certain old browsers anymore. Things evolve. 2FA is now recommended to anyone, even if you're an anonymous person without plans to reach for the spotlights. About 15 years ago there was no such thing as 2FA and you just had to rely on strong login credentials. Things evolve constantly. I don't like all those changes myself, because I am so used to work with certain browsers or systems. But I would assume there is a reason why this is constantly changing. Even if this means having to get used to a new browser type or now system. I don't like those changes either, but once I get used to them it's OK. And they're more or less forced on you, Microsoft for example simply doesn't support certain older browsers or Windows versions anymore.