New gatekeepers for a new era
From algorithms to search engine indices, getting “noticed” in the worldwide web’s endless sea of content is just as hard as it ever was.
“Taking a bath with a toaster is a fun way to unwind and wash away stress…”
— Google AI Overview
Behold, the brave new world that the old guard has long feared is now upon us. It’s a world free from the shackles of yesteryear’s informational gatekeepers — a wonderous, glorious and mesmerizing era…
It’s also ridiculously stupid and unserious in countless ways.
In a rush to be the first to apply artificial intelligence to something slightly more beneficial than mundane gadgetry, Google has been busy releasing versions of its AI that are clearly not yet ready to interface with the complexities of the real world. Only months after offering people images of ethnically diverse Nazis and gender-inclusive Popes, the tech giant’s foray into incorporating AI into search results is experiencing yet another cavalcade of embarrassments.
Apparently, according to Google’s AI software, bathing with a toaster is a fun way to “unwind;” eating rocks is recommended by nutritionists; and another name for 1,000 tomatoes is a “kilotomato.” (I actually kinda like that last one.)
Clearly, the intelligence of our future AI overlords is limited — which is probably an encouraging development for anyone who fears that the apocalyptic rise of the machines is rapidly approaching. Forget Skynet, technology is still trying to figure out how to summarize search engines results accurately… and it’s not really doing all that well.
Nonetheless, there’s still plenty of fear that AI will massively disrupt entire industries. Legacy media, for example, has seen a glimpse of AI-powered search engines and are (probably rightly) terrified that such a future will further dismantle their role as informational gatekeepers.
[Google’s AI] Overviews give "comprehensive answers without the user ever having to click to another page," the The New York Times warns. And this worries websites that rely on Google to drive much of their traffic.
"It potentially chokes off the original creators of the content," Frank Pine, executive editor of MediaNews Group and Tribune Publishing (owner of 68 daily newspapers), told the Times.
…
In its letter, sent May 28, the News/Media Alliance asked the government to take action against Google's use of AI. The Alliance wants the agencies to investigate what it calls Google's "monopolistic misappropriation of publishers' content" and to use federal antitrust law "to stop Google's latest expansion of AI Overviews."
In other words, traditional publishers — such as newspapers and legacy media outlets — are concerned that AI Overview will further reduce their already waning viewership, and they’re asking government to step in and effectively guarantee an imaginary right to web traffic.
The inanity of lobbying government to guarantee the preservation of a particular business model could be its own essay (indeed, Reason.com covered it pretty well), but the concern that AI will seriously disrupt the industry certainly seems like a legitimate possibility.
However, features such as Google’s inept AI software is hardly to blame for the demise of traditional publication models. Times have long been changing in the realm of content creation — and as many other creative industries (such as movies, music, book publication and more) have learned, the profitable business models of the past are disintegrating.
As I’ve written before, the rise of the internet has brought about a brave new world where the traditional “gatekeepers” of information and entertainment are no longer the dominant forces in their respective fields:
It used to be that a columnist, reporter or “newspaperman” had for themselves a comfy gig full of prestige, influence and clout when only a handful of major industry giants controlled virtually all avenues for publication. However, as the democratization of the internet took hold in the early 2000’s, and virtually anyone could become their own publisher, things began to change. Today, newspapers, publishing houses and media outlets are no longer the gatekeepers they once were to aspiring writers.
(In fact, most publishing houses now require writers to provide their own marketing plans, potential customers and, in some cases, their own distribution networks.)
In other words, we’ve seen this movie before… it’s the sort of “creative destruction” that has come to define innovative progress. As new technologies arrive, markets evolve, existing business models become obsolete, and a predictable pattern emerges among those impacted by such disruption: Denial, panic and irrelevance.
In the same way buggy whip manufacturers had no hope of survival as Henry Ford democratized the automobile, the recent disruption brought about by such a democratization of broadcastability might make the “legacy” gatekeepers of yesteryear equally as irrelevant in the near future.
However, that doesn’t mean we’re entering a world free from gatekeepers entirely.
While The New York Times may no longer be the guardian of irrefutable facts that it once was (understatement), there remain plenty of institutions, elite powerbrokers and natural barriers that exist between those who wish to produce content and those who wish to consume it.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Creative Discourse to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.