They get basically everything they want (keeping it all in the tent), plus a negotiating position on search deals where they can refuse something because they can't do it now.
Quite why the judge is so concerned about the rise of AI factoring in here is beyond me. It's fundamentally an anticompetitive decision.
I basically only use Google for "take me to this web page I already know exists" queries now, and maps.
Do you check all of the sources though? Those can be hallucinated and you may not notice unless you're always checking them. Or it could have misunderstood the source.
It's easy to assume it's always accurate when it generally is. But it's not always.
So like a lot of the internet? I don’t really understand this idea that LLMs have to be right 100% of the time to be useful. Very little of the web currently meets that standard and society uses it every day.
A documentation for a specific product I expect to be mostly right, but maybe miss the required detail.
Some blog, by some author I haven't heard about I trust less.
Some third party sites I give some trust, some less.
AI is a mixed bag, while always implying authority on the subject. (While becoming submissive when corrected)