Tell us: do you think AI has made Google search better or worse?
The Guardian is inviting readers to share their views on whether Google's growing use of artificial intelligence has improved or worsened its search engine. Google now places AI-generated "AI Overviews" at the top of search results, summarising answers before users reach the traditional list of links, a shift the company describes as its most significant search upgrade ever. This change has altered browsing habits for billions of users and sparked debate over its impact on the wider web, as fewer people click through to the original source websites when an AI summary already answers their query.
The financial stakes are significant: large US media companies are suing Google, alleging that AI Overviews have diverted and reduced traffic to their sites, cutting into advertising revenue that depends on clicks. Google disputes this, saying it has not observed a decline in aggregate traffic and that such claims rely on "flawed methodologies," with search vice-president Liz Reid stating that organic click volume to websites has remained relatively stable year-on-year. The company has signalled that further AI integration into search is planned.
- Guardian asks readers: has Google's AI search overhaul helped or harmed?
- AI Overviews now top search results, changing how people browse the web
- Media firms sue Google over alleged traffic and revenue losses
New here? Start with this
Google is the main company behind the search engine used by billions of people to find information online. Its AI Overviews use artificial intelligence to produce a short answer at the top of some results pages, alongside the familiar links to websites.
This changes how people may find and read information: an overview can answer a question without a visit to the sites it draws on. Many websites rely on visitors for advertising income, so the effect of these summaries matters to publishers as well as to people using search.
Media companies and Google disagree about whether AI features have reduced visits to publishers’ websites. The debate raises questions about how search should present information and how websites can sustain the work behind it.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those supporting AI Overviews argue they represent a genuine improvement in user experience. By synthesising information from multiple sources at the point of search, AI summaries deliver answers faster, allowing people to quickly find what they need without navigating away from the search results page. Google's own data indicates that overall traffic to publisher websites remains stable year-on-year, suggesting the feature has not substantially harmed the wider ecosystem. Proponents see this as a natural evolution of search that better serves users whilst maintaining their ability to access original sources through provided links.
The case against
Critics contend that AI Overviews fundamentally undermine the economic model supporting quality journalism and web content. Publishers invest substantial resources in creating original reporting and analysis, yet AI summaries extract and present their work without directing traffic or revenue to them. This arrangement, they argue, is unsustainable: if content creators cannot monetise their work through reader traffic and advertising, they will produce less quality content, ultimately impoverishing the information ecosystem. The decline in clicks—which publishers document through their own analytics—threatens the viability of newsrooms and independent creators who depend on web traffic for survival.