ReportWire

Tag: AI overview

  • A New Way to Ruin Thanksgiving: Making AI Slop Recipes

    [ad_1]

    Remember when people started asking AI tools for cooking advice, and it wound up telling them to do things like use glue to get cheese to stick on pizza? Well, people are apparently relying on that same technology to guide them through cooking this year’s Thanksgiving dinner. In fact, so many are doing so that Bloomberg reports it’s putting a real dent in the views of recipe writers who usually see traffic spike this time of year.

    The problem is effectively the same one that led to Google previously recommending that people eat one rock per day: AI Overviews in Search. They provide users with a quick panel that pulls out all of the “relevant information” without requiring them to click through to a website and scroll through the admittedly annoying 2,000-word personal essay that precedes every recipe ever posted online.

    This creates two issues. The first is for the recipe authors, who have put actual work—from their collected knowledge of food to the effort of prep work to the trial and error to get the final product just right—into the recipes they share. They’re getting their traffic siphoned off by the AI Overviews. Creators that Bloomberg spoke with said their traffic was down between 40% to 80% this year from previous Thanksgivings. That’s in line with the experience of other sites, too, which have reported as much as 80% declines in click-throughs since AI Overviews became more prominent.

    The second problem is for people making the recipes, because there is a very real chance that they are getting bad information. Here’s the thing about AI summaries of anything: it doesn’t actually understand what it is reading. All it can do is spit back what it thinks is relevant. That’s kind of a big deal for cooking, where little errors can ruin a dish. For instance, Bloomberg talked to one cook who has a popular Christmas cake recipe. On the creator’s page for the recipe, it suggests baking it at 160°C (that’s 320°F) for an hour and a half. An AI-summarized version of that recipe recommends you bake it for three to four hours—more than twice as long. You don’t have to know a whole lot about baking to know that’s not going to turn out great.

    AI-generated recipes have become a whole micro-industry. If you hop on any social platform and go looking for ideas of what to cook, there’s a good chance you’ll land on a page that looks like your standard cooking inspiration fare—but you might notice that the recipes just aren’t quite right. Best-case scenario, you’ll probably end up with a relatively bland but perfectly fine dish. Worst case, you might end up burning down your house because somewhere in the black hole that is a large language model, it decided that you should put your tinfoil-wrapped fish in the microwave on high.

    Maybe grab one of those old cookbooks off the shelf this holiday season just to be safe.

    [ad_2]

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link

  • Rolling Stone Publisher Sues Google Over AI Overview Summaries

    [ad_1]

    Google has insisted that its AI-generated search result overviews and summaries have not actually hurt traffic for publishers. The publishers disagree, and at least one is willing to go to court to prove the harm they claim Google has caused. Penske Media Corporation, the parent company of Rolling Stone and The Hollywood Reporter, sued Google on Friday over allegations that the search giant has used its work without permission to generate summaries and ultimately reduced traffic to its publications.

    Penske’s argument is pretty simple: by showing an AI-generated summary of an article at the top of the page via Google’s AI Overview panel, users have little reason to click through to read the full article, resulting in dwindling traffic finding its way to the publisher’s platforms, which it needs in order to monetize its content, either through ads or subscriptions. The search engine, the company argues, uses its monopoly over search to basically make publishers give up access to their content for next to nothing.

    Notably, Penske claims that in recent years, Google has basically given publishers no choice but to give up access to its content. The lawsuit claims that Google now only indexes a website, making it available to appear in search, if the publisher agrees to give Google permission to use that content for other purposes, like its AI summaries. If you think you lose traffic by not getting clickthroughs on Google, just imagine how bad it would be to not appear at all.

    A spokesperson for Google, unspurprisingly, said that the company doesn’t agree with the claims. “With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. We will defend against these meritless claims.” Google Spokesperson Jose Castaneda told Reuters.

    That has basically been the company line since rumbles of traffic declines started getting louder. Last month, the company published a blog post in which it claimed that click volume from Google Search results to websites has been “relatively stable year-over-year”—notably without offering a definition for what “relatively stable” is. The company also made the case that “click quality” has increased, so people who do click through are spending more time on the sites they get sent to.

    That doesn’t match up with what publishers claim to be seeing. DMG Media, owner of the Daily Mail, claims click-through-rates by as much as 89% since AI Overviews were rolled out. A Wall Street Journal report from earlier this year said Business Insider, The Washington Post, and HuffPost have all reported traffic declines. Pew Research also found that people don’t click through nearly as often when an AI overview is available, finding that people who are served search results that don’t have an AI summary click through to an article nearly twice as often as those who see an AI-generated result.

    Just for kicks, if you ask Google Gemini if Google’s AI Overviews are resulting in less traffic for publishers, it says, “Yes, Google’s AI Overview in search results appears to be resulting in less traffic for many websites and publishers. While Google has stated that AI Overviews create new opportunities for content discovery, several studies and anecdotal reports from publishers suggest a negative impact on traffic.” It might be fun to ask Google, “Are you lying about AI Overview’s impact on traffic, or is your AI assistant providing false and unreliable information?”

    [ad_2]

    AJ Dellinger

    Source link