harm to the publishing industry is the worlds tiniest violin and biggest eyeroll. google is evil in much bigger ways than this.
Fix the insanity that is intellectual property and get back to us.
Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#12Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome. It seems obvious to me that the key to their dominance is that they both have control over how traffic is distributed to websites, and how those websites get paid for the traffic they get. Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them. I think if you wanna break u…
Also Chrome is basically useless as a money-making product without the google integrations. There's no way to monetize it without search and ad integrations.
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#13There will have to be a new IP framework to make sure people are properly incentivized to produce content in an AI first world.
The "traffic" did not incentivize "publishers" (as they call themselves) to produce any valuable content.. instead, it incentivized them to produce SEO garbage that's not helpful and often deceptive.
I think it's worth being thoughtful about the whole range of folks doing a whole range of stuff out on the Internet. I like this piece about the various incentives that exist:
https://vbuckenham.com/blog/how-to-find-things-online/
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#14Elevator Operators (people who were driving elevators up and down) also got their job "stolen" by AI.
Was it the responsibility of the people who created automated, cheaper and better elevators to defend the job of these obsolete people ?
Not really.
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#15The LLM should know when it regurgitates content from a specific site and page, that should be the new “pageview”. Me telling the LLM that I don’t want the first answer it gave me from a common site is the same as me going deep into Google search result page 10 (like the old days).
> LLM should know when it regurgitates content from a specific site and page I dont think that's how LLMs work.
Maybe some reverse attribution to determine how much credit to give different sources in the old top k results. Maybe a llm that is trained on fact finding, and giving proper % of credit. But this would probably require a collective contract in place to benefit site owners, which means its never going to happen.
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#16Elevator Operators (people who were driving elevators up and down) also got their job "stolen" by AI. Was it the responsibility of the people who created automated, cheaper and better elevators to defend the job of these obsolete people ? Not really.
The big question is whether Google followed the content licensing, and if needed, paid for it.
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#17It's definitely not fair, but publishers were already driving away users with screens full of ads, newsletter pop ups, "affiliate" links, and padded-out content (so people scroll more and see more ads). Users aren't going to shed any tears for them.
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#18Elevator Operators (people who were driving elevators up and down) also got their job "stolen" by AI. Was it the responsibility of the people who created automated, cheaper and better elevators to defend the job of these obsolete people ? Not really.
The big question is whether Google followed the content licensing, and if needed, paid for it.
I'm sure they did not, but the rich guys win, even if they do something truly illegal.
If they would have respected the laws, OpenAI would not have been able to create AI models at all (as they are derivatives of copyrighted works).
So it's pure piracy of content at scale. The same with Veo3.
Is it beneficial to humanity ? Probably yes.
Is it harmful to content creators ? Absolutely but in the long-term, they have little chances to survive, no matter if legal or not, because this is both what the market and consumers want.
For example, these people on Fiverr selling blog posts, it was minimum 200 USD per blog post, and few days of turnaround.
Now with AI it's 0.01 USD and instant.
Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#19Re: Google's AI Mode is 'the definition of theft,' publishers say
#20Maybe off topic, but Ive always found strange people who comment on Google's monopoly by focusing on chrome. It seems obvious to me that the key to their dominance is that they both have control over how traffic is distributed to websites, and how those websites get paid for the traffic they get. Chrome and android are just nice to haves, but Google would still be a monopoly without them. I think if you wanna break u…
Also Chrome is basically useless as a money-making product without the google integrations. There's no way to monetize it without search and ad integrations.
Apple gets paid $20 billion per year to set Google as the default search engine in Safari...