[FinnLobsien]

> I’m not saying we all have to innovate or perish but how did our rules based order allow Google to get to this point.

Well millions of people learned how to game the Google Search algorithm and created long-winded, hollow content that would rank on the first page to the point that people no longer trusted Google's results.

Then the perfect technology to solve that exact problem came along—one that let Google cease its dependency on the pesky people it was sending traffic to.

[tndibona]

Yes, this is true that all the click bait and unoriginal content deserves to perish. But, what about the carve outs for people putting money on original content. Like perhaps a local news gazette with paid journalists. They need google to be found, they also can't afford to get scraped and be AI-regurgitated up.

Let's take a practical example, if you searched for let's say "Whats the latest research on intermittent fasting and its effect on weight loss?". Google could easily AI-summarise a DOAC podcast on this topic and serve it up. How is this fair to Steven Bartlett who put the money and time on an interview podcast? He is deprived of a potential subscriber, lost out potential ad revenue, cant recover his cost. The youtube network he depends on is owned by Google. Seems a bit unfair to genuine people.

[FinnLobsien]

Yeah I totally agree! But I think it's a reaction on Google's part to the SEO industry. I mourn the loss of independent media, blogosphere etc. and the trend to everything being either more generic or more outrageous.

[tndibona]

Yep. This SEO industry is a result of "Lets hack the pagerank algorithm". Maybe a sensible use of AI for google would be to use it to differentiate between genuine and derivative content. Drop the page rank based search.