Google’s turn to artificial intelligence has alarmed news publishers, who are asking governments for help.
“Agency intervention is necessary to stop the existential threat Google poses to original content creators,” the News/Media Alliance, a major journalism trade group, said in a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wrote. It asks the agencies to use antitrust authorities to “block the expansion of Google’s latest artificial intelligence overview,” Google’s latest search engine innovation.
Want to know more about sex, technology, body autonomy, law and online culture? subscription sex and technology from reason and Elizabeth Nolan Brown.
Break the search status quo
Google’s plain old top-of-page links to news outlets or other information sites are disappearing from many searches. Now, much of those primary search results are taken up by an overview of what Google calls artificial intelligence.
The overview provides a short, artificial intelligence-generated summary, paired with short text linking to the website. (If you haven’t used Google in a while, try it now and see for yourself.)
The results are far from perfect (you want some glue on your pizza?) and leave a lot of room for doubt and interpretation. (Last weekend, Overview provided me with seemingly contradictory advice about fever in infants over two periods of time.) But that’s often the case with what you find in old-style lists of links and snippets. For some time, Google has been moving away from link-prominent results, responding to many search queries with short (non-AI-generated) content and in the form of question-and-answer text throughout the linked pages. So the recent emergence of AI-generated text answers didn’t even immediately grab my attention.
But newspaper and magazine publishers have certainly taken notice.
Overview gives “comprehensive answers without the user having to click through to another page” New York Times warn. This worries sites that rely on Google to drive the majority of their traffic.
“This could kill the original creator of content,” Frank Pine, executive editor of Media News Group and Tribune Publishing, owner of 68 daily newspapers, told the outlet. era.
The focus should be on potentially— It’s unclear how the change will affect traffic flow. “We do continue to see people clicking and exploring links in the AI overview a lot,” said Liz Reid, vice president of search at Google. era. “Websites that appear in the AI overview actually receive more traffic than basic links.”
“Publishers said in interviews that it was too early to see a difference in traffic to Google since the AI overview arrived.” era Report.
But they still want to preemptively punish Google for disrupting the media business model (yet again) in ways that news organizations don’t like.
Antitrust Action Requirements
In a letter sent on May 28, the News/Media Alliance asked the government to take action against Google’s use of artificial intelligence. The coalition wants the agencies to investigate what it calls Google’s “monopolistic misappropriation of publisher content” and use federal antitrust laws to “block Google’s latest outlined expansion of artificial intelligence.”
It amazes me that an industry that is so supportive of civil liberties that benefit them, such as a free press, can be so indifferent to freedoms in other areas. Here we have a journalism trade group asking the federal government to simply shut down a tech tool that possible Make the publishing industry less profitable.
“Google is… depriving publishers of traffic and creating conditions that encourage users to stay on its platform rather than click through to get information directly from the original content creator,” the News/Media Alliance complained in a press release.
But the publisher did not right eye— especially without the right to have Google send them eyeballs.
Imagine if the department stores of yore asked the government to intervene to stop malls or big box retailers from stealing away customers. Or if book publishers asked for intervention to stop movie theaters from stealing readers’ leisure time. Most people would consider this request to be ridiculous, as we all know that existing entertainment and platforms have no right to demand ever-unwavering audiences.
Media sites are used to Google searches bringing them a certain amount of traffic. But that doesn’t mean Google is obligated to continue sending them the same amount of traffic forever, and any handwritten reference to or link to a website about Google’s AI won’t change that.
“Google is abusing its power in search by using publisher content to support Google AI Overviews and its other GAI products without payment or permission, thereby eliminating competition,” the News/Media Alliance letter states. . But there is an easy way for sites to opt out: not be indexed by Google, or provide snippets for it to use.
Sites that are not optimized for appearing in Google results, or are set up to appear only as links without accompanying text, will not be “stolen” by Google’s artificial intelligence tools. The alliance acknowledged this in its letter, noting that publishers can “opt[ing] Exit the search distribution.
Of course, websites can find readers through people visiting their sites directly, through direct links, clicks through social media and news aggregators, and other non-search methods. But access through Google is so beneficial to publishers that they are hesitant to give it up and opt out of AI Overviews.
Now, definitely understandable Publishers want to be able to use Google in a way that benefits them, without any trade-offs. But this is not a realistic business model, nor is it a realistic demand.
Harvest and sow
The news media’s hostility to technology companies may have accelerated Google’s transition to artificial intelligence.
We’re seeing publishers asking search engines and social platforms pay them While this arrangement benefits the publication (arguably more than the tech companies) through increased traffic, it still enjoys the privilege of sharing links to news. News outlets from the U.S. to Australia and Canada have been trying to impose the equivalent of a link tax, which would charge these tech companies to link. (No matter how many times I type this, I can’t get over how stupid it is.)
We see constant complaints from the news media about the type of articles on search engines and social platforms—that they are too partisan, contain too much misinformation, etc.
Is it any wonder that when given the opportunity to downplay news results, these tech companies jumped at it?
Antitrust means what the government wants it to mean
In a saner world, what Google’s turn to artificial intelligence means less Antitrust madness.
Part of the argument for using antitrust laws against Google is that its search engine is a monopoly that can never be broken. But artificial intelligence tools look like they could pose a threat to typical searches on Google in ways that lawmakers and regulators don’t anticipate. Once again, technological dynamism is more capable of disrupting old paradigms than regulatory or legal action.
Rather than simply letting other companies win the AI arms race, Google is starting to integrate AI into its search engine. We have yet to see how this plays out in the long term. The important point is that Google is not asking for government intervention to save the search engine model of yesteryear; It innovates.
Newspapers and publishing organizations can learn a lot from this. Alas, they seem even more keen to exploit the Biden administration’s anti-tech antitrust agenda to their own benefit.
The government does not seem to view Google’s artificial intelligence disruption as a blow to its search engine monopoly theory. Jonathan Kanter, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said it was simply revamping its talking points: Now it wants to investigate AI content deals.
At a recent conference at Stanford University, Peemons According to the report, “Kant claimed that the Justice Department has the authority to take action based on antitrust principles of monopoly, which occurs when buyers in the supply chain exercise excessive power, causing prices to drop and inhibiting production. He warned, Without adequate competition, in order to compensate creators, AI companies may exploit monopoly power to an unprecedented degree, with serious consequences.
Rather than reflect on how artificial intelligence could challenge their notions of tech monopolies, officials appear determined to move their antitrust agenda toward any new technology that emerges.
More sex and tech news
• A male contraceptive gel showing promising results in trials.
• On artificial intelligence robots and intimacy.
• Facebook launches an AI assistant that no one wants.
• “It looks like the AI hype train has really just left the station and we should all jump on board,” writes Christopher Mims on the website. this wall street journal. “But both in terms of what AI can do and the returns it delivers to investors, there’s potential for serious disappointment.” AI tools are getting slower, “very expensive” to run, and ” Even the most capable applications appear to have fewer applications than initially thought.”
Today’s pictures
No sex and technology Last week’s newsletter, as I’m busy moving into this little slice of suburbia:
