I'd like to see the data for that 49% of adults. It feels high and I wouldn't put it past some companies to report mandatory AI bots as increased use by customers. I know Amazon requires it to do returns now, and I've had more than one site bring up the chat bot if you wanted access to content.
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2026
247 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
85805 readers
3329 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
it's "% of U.S. adults who say they ever use AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot". They didn't ask about regular use, it's the total number of people who have ever used a chatbot in any capacity. So with that framing 49% doesn't surprise me. Of course the percentage of people who have ever used a chatbot is going to go up over time.
Of course the percentage of people who have ever used a chatbot is going to go up over time.
Yes, and crucially, it never goes down.
It's like asking: "do you use a motor vehicle?" And then counting everyone who has ever been in a car, a truck, a bus, or potentially even a train as a yes. It plainly conflates active users with exploratory or incidental users.
The only reason to do such things is to inflate numbers because being honest about them makes it look bad.
Yup. I used Gemini like a year before it took off back when Google first sent out testing invites, because I wanted to see what it could do. That's very different from active use, but this survey would count me as a regular user.
Although since Google shows me an AI summary whenever I search now, maybe I count as an active one anyways... along with everyone else who uses Google.
Unfortunately A LOT of less tech-savvy people absolutely love AI chatbots. All of my girlfriend's family regularly ask ChatGPT random shit multiple times a day. Many of my friends have taken to using ChatGPT for every single online enquiry. It's a worrying world.
It sort of makes sense, though. Google Search has been a hot pile of garbage for years. Researching something simple used to be quick and easy, but now you have to sift through endless SEO trash websites to find half an answer (or use a better search engine).
People go for the path of least resistance.
my bro who ins tech, been laid off since 2023, going through a " late 30s midlife crisis) uses this all the time.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Number seems low to me....
People are using AI all the time without knowing it. Almost everyone is using the AI summary feature on every google search (i'm sure those summaries arent generated every time, so does it count as AI use if it's a re-used result?). There's probably a bunch of AI bullshit enabled on your phone you dont know about.
My guess would be closer to 90%... only a small minority of people are truly tech savvy enough to know what's going on under the hood, and truly dedicated 100% anti-AI to avoid using those sites/features.
i'm sure those summaries arent generated every time
Why? I'm not sure what you mean. If you re-run your search with the same terms, you get a different response.
I rarely use google, and i never tried redoing a search to see if the summary changes... i just assumed the summary was cached and re-used if you or someone else makes a similar search...
thats wild if they're burning up gpu time on EVERY query
We are fucked
I'm a dev at work with 1 dev Jr dev under me.
We are in desperate need of another jr dev. But my work rather spend tokens.
So I setup agentic workflows which works 90% of the time. The 10% requires a me, a senior developer to babysit the workflow. My hourly cost are significantly higher.
After calculating the token usage and my hourly rate there are still some savings using the agentic workflows. But not much.
But we end up sacrificing is a pool of junior developers that I can train to be a senior. If I ever leave the company the entire company is screwed.
If I ever leave the company the entire company is screwed.
Yes. This has happened before, and it will happen again.
The time is coming soon for another bidding war on talent, and for all losers in the bidding war to pick up a lifetime subscription to "our software works for another month" from overpriced consulting agencies.
It is incredibly preventable, but you can't fix average CEO levels of stupid.
Edit: The funny part is that this next time the bidding losers will also have an AI token passthrough surcharge that is "pinky promise, only the token costs of your contract and definitely not subsidizing Todd's recreational use".
You sacrifice far more than that, it's just not all immediately apparent
Agreed. The entire industry engineer/developer industry is fucked.
Hearing all this stuff makes me soooo glad I switched from CS to mechanical halfway through college. I'm safe for a little longer...
load more comments
(2 replies)
I’m looking for an intro dev role. You just confirmed why I’m not getting interviews.
How much of that use is "forced"? If people use google they're using AI whenever they search
Exactly: the numbers that are being cited by the companies which have a vested interest in pumping up LLM usage stats, even if it’s just the appearance thereof, are - surprise, surprise - fundamentally biased. And of course, the spineless fuckwit generation of journalists that most of the populace uncritically relies upon fail to dig any deeper than the first-order patterns in the data, or to point out the likely obvious biases.
This is not hard-hitting journalism. This is the appearance of hard-hitting journalism.
And one can’t control what their employer forces them to use. 40 hours per week I am forced to be all in regarding Microslop products.
My company is forcing ai down my throat aswell :(
Suck to be anti ai and in tech
I'm sure that the majority of smokers do not believe that tobacco production or consumption is a benefit to society.
49%
This is going to be worse than leaded gas
At least this can be reversed, probably. Brain damage from lead is permanent.
Can be, but probably won't be.:(
I'm hopeful that once people have to pay the unsubsidized cost of using LLMs, the bubble will pop and it'll pass, like the blockchain bullshit.
If you run a local model, you don't have to pay for tokens.
If anything... 49% sounds low, considering how many of these shit-tier chat bots are becoming required. Nobody is choosing to use them, given the choice, and the companies that force it are all losing market share because of it.
I still have my suspicions about how that 49% is being measured, because if it counts any 'use' then technically using most search engines is using an LLM regardless of wether you want to or not, a lot of people are now also forced by their employers regardless of wether they want to or not.
100% of Americans (rounded to the nearest 1%) participate in capitalism. How many of those actually support the system?
They're probably been mandated to use AI at work. I know we've been mandated to do it, they haven't actually started tracking you said yet but they've said they're going to.
Very likely. Everyone I know who's in a software development role is required to use these tools now.
I use ai chatbots like I used to use Google.
Google sucks now so AI chatbots tend to give direct answers at the moment. I know it’s a limited time before enshitification kicks in.
Do you click on the links to check if it’s actually true what they say?
Only if it’s important. Usually it’s just trivial stuff.
I still can't wrap my head around this. If you don't care whether or not the answer is true, why even bother asking in the first place?
It doesn't matter how trivial the question is. If it's worth asking, I want the right answer. If I didn't care, I wouldn't ask!
load more comments
(3 replies)
Sure, it's a wrong answer machine, but sometimes it's right, and it's almost always fast!
Generally when accuracy matters I ask for a direct link with proof and for the specific part of the doc that is related. I either get exactly that or it'll realize it's hallucinating and can't prove anything.
Hugely wasteful but unfortunately still faster than how unusable search has become.
Not op but I do with the google AI summary if I'm not able to reasonably verify its truthfulness against my own knowledge.
Have you googled anything lately? Sometimes you have to just AI because Google is retarded.
It’s so bad it drove me to finally pay for Kagi, which I must say is incredibly better than ddg or ecosia
Kagi is highly intriguing but their prices put me off every time. $15CAD per month for a search engine is a hard pill to swallow. That's a higher cost than basically any other digital subscription that I pay or have paid at any point.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I have never heard of Kagi. I'm going to have to look into it
Of course chatbot use is rising when every shitty website replaced their support pages with one. What else can I do but use the stupid chatbot?
I don't pay for any, but I use AI. That doesn't mean that I don't think it is destructive to society. I would rather it fail and go away, but that doesn't seem likely.
view more: next ›