• headset@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Man, this should be the shortest, easiest investigation ever. Here, let me help. Google does not offer any compensation to the websites they’re ripping off with their AI summaries.

    While you are at it, consider also investigating bing and duck duck go.

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Cue the websites complaining in a couple years that even less people are visiting their pages, like they did when summarizing pages on social media was banned.

  • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Remember when companies like Google and Facebook got slapped with fines and fees from various countries for sumerizing news in “social feeds” on their sites.

    News outlets were complaining about loss of ad revenue as a result of reduced traffic to their website directly, as consumers could get news summarized on their social feed.

    Facebook even in some cases blocked news links in some countries from not showing on users feeds as a result, so as to be compliant with local passed laws and not pay fees or fines.

    Then news outlets complained that no one was going to their sites because links were not being shared on social platforms. The very thing they complained about in the first place.

    Guess AI summarising news is somehow completely different and a completely new challenge that politicans somehow don’t understand.

    • YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The difference is that the AI summaries blatantly make shit up and actively contribute to the spread of misinformation