5 ms·

The article treats as axiom that organic traffic is a right. It's not. Most people don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us much better

The article treats as axiom that organic traffic is a right. It's not. Most people don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us much better and specific advice, with references, when we want it.

Krasnol 1y ago
> Most people don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us much better and specific advice, with references, when we want it. They may not want that now, they might want it back if they get used to the google AI experience for a bit longer. The amount of false information I got from this thing in the short time it's been forced upon me is staggering. My brain already started to filter out this part of the search results.
sampullman 1y ago
I haven't been able to get much practical travel advice from AI yet, any tips? For stuff like hiking routes, permitting, local cuisine, etc. I don't think it can replace a good blog from an experienced person at this point.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  I'd like to engage. Can you give a specific example? We can make an honest attempt to see what the old vs AI options for it looks like. Both of us will walk away a bit more informed, and share here with others as well.
  - sampullman 1y ago
    What do you mean? I use AI plenty and am aware of the capabilities. AI will give good surface level advice and sometimes point to decent sources. If I'm looking for e.g. a good hike in a specific area near me, I know the blogs that will have directions, pics, and GPX data for all the routes. These are found via word of mouth, search, and local forums.
- FinnLobsien 1y ago
  It depends. I've found o3 exceptional at finding things off the beaten path. I told it "I will be in city A, B and C in [month]" and would love to find out what to do. I have a car, am willing to drive and generally care most about gastronomy, food and culture. There's also flexibility in terms of timing and stays." It read things like websites of municipalities of surrounding towns and found local food festivals in towns I never would've found out about otherwise. It's exactly the kind of stuff I'd previously read the experienced person's blog for.
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  It's a trade-off. AI gives you speed but lower quality. Blog posts are higher quality but take longer to find/curate. For hiking routes, I ask AI for a list of suggested hiking routes in [area] based on my criteria (e.g. dog friendly, accessible by public transport, whatever) Then I google the specific suggested routes to fact-check the AI and get more detailed/reliable info.
  - sampullman 1y ago
    That's true. I'm not anti AI or anything, I use it for plenty of things where search falls short or has decayed due to SEO spam I guess it comes down to knowing where to find valuable information. If you already have known quality sources, AI is currently inferior. Where I live I'm lucky to have tons of trails that have been meticulously mapped out and the made available (with images, directions, gear recommendations, etc.) on various blogs. I don't see AI being able to totally replace that in its current state, especially due to the semi-dynamic nature of the data.
- wslh 1y ago
  My experience with AI is that prompting LLMs tends to fail when the task involves returning a long list of alternatives and/or selecting niche options unless the user explicitly names them.
  - arrowsmith 1y ago
    Do it iteratively. Ask the LLM for a long list of alternatives but without detail, only the names. Then start a new chat, paste in the list of names, and ask for more detail.
    - wslh 1y ago
      I've done this several times when benchmarking lesser-known companies, and manual compilation using a search engine consistently outperformed LLMs even when those companies are part of the model's training data. My intuition (could be completely wrong) is that lesser-known companies have much less density around them that popular brands, except if you are very specific. It would be great if this could be tweaked somehow.
- ezst 1y ago
  I wouldn't expect them to. Large language models compress the information at a high-level. If you need specifics, you need a search engine and a data set. LLMs specifically aren't that, despite all the fuss and hype.
fidotron 1y ago
> The article treats as axiom that organic traffic is a right. It's not. Agreed, but traffic has been the substitute for monetary rewards so far. If they aren't sending the traffic then someone is going to start to need to pay for surfacing and verifying information directly.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  It's an open market that will step up to meet the need. IMO, we can't hold back innovation for web-1.0 based text articles + text search model.
  - fidotron 1y ago
    That would be believable if copyright was enforced appropriately on existing AI training data. The big problem with this is it means anything really interesting will no longer be published in the open.
    - throw10920 1y ago
      I hope that's true. The appropriate response to Google and OpenAI committing mass content/effort theft via AI training should be the disappearance of things that they can steal. Unfortunately, there's enough slop that the average user will probably just continue using the AI, because it's so much easier that the quality floor they're willing to hit is very low.
    - debesyla 1y ago
      As a decade long blogger I am actually thinking about writing more to paper magazines now - a 1000 paper magazine readers are more than 100 from rare Google traffic (:
      - fidotron 1y ago
        I'm going there: I think the same is becoming true here. A couple of days ago one of the web games in my profile frontpaged here, and while it generated a lot of traffic it was nothing like previous times. I have had much more trouble with large private mailing lists linking to things, which also leads to a more condensed rush when everyone looks at once. Organic traffic generally appears dead, Google or not.
Aldipower 1y ago
And where the training data for your AI advice comes from?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  From Reddit and user forums of course.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  Factual data mostly came from sources like wikipedia, news and social forums. I see these as continuing. Opinion data - from all other SEO sites. These were low signal mostly, and AI seems to have got the general gist of how to structure content for consumption. So rather information reaching our mind through a SEO writer, it's now being AI written, which is atleast more standardized, and can be grounded more easily, and personalized to boot.
  - Aldipower 1y ago
    No SEO writer reaches my mind. You're leaving some things out. I am able to collect my information wisely. But if Google suppresses organic sites, they are not all SEO, then I just won't use Google anymore. My training data question is still valid. Social forums are also organic btw..
  - pmontra 1y ago
    But if nobody write SEO content anymore because questions to AI remove all human traffic to those sites, where will AI find up to date opinions? Facebook ? Instagram? Meta will block Google from scraping them or ask money. Booking? Same for Microsoft. Tripadvisor? They better have to buy it soon. Or AI will invent opinions based on the better bid. That would be an extension of the ad business and sponsored contents too.
- HamsterDan 1y ago
  That cat is out of the bag, don't you think? Even if the US passes a strict law protecting copyright owners from having their works used to train AI, China is not going to obey that law, so US companies will just fall behind.
hulitu 1y ago
> when AI gives us much better and specific advice When. At the moment, not.
NitpickLawyer 1y ago
> don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us A bit of a tangential anecdote, on the subject of "human written" stuff pre AI. Circa 99-2000 I knew a US company that would hire students from CEE to write travel content for their many .com properties. The students were instructed to write "as if they'd travelled there", or "as if you're living there", or "in an official tour-guide style", and so on. Judging by how spread the content of my friend's writing was, and how "stereotypical" the other pieces were on those properties (that we found after searching for known content), it was pretty clear that nothing on those sites was genuine. Everything was fake! Since then I take everything with a bit of cynicism, knowing how much of the "natural, organic content" is in fact faked with low-paid contributors. But hey, during those times the gig was pretty good for my friend doing it.
6stringmerc 1y ago
Citation needed. Who are these “most people” and do they actually have money to spend? AI frequently cites references based on human generated content. Often it does a terrible job of it in my experience. I searched for a very specific name and the Google AI returned a “profile” and the link to the person’s social media account was displayed the name that I’d searched for but the AI directed me to a completely different person WITH A DIFFERENT NAME as the link destination. Why the hell would I trust it with travel plans if it get such basic, easily validated challenges so very wrong? So unless you have a citation for your claim, and even then one that meets some basic credentials of rigor, then you’re flat out wrong. The purpose of a search engine is to direct organic traffic, not function as fucking bait.
AndrewStephens 1y ago
I think the days of Google driving traffic to sites then splitting the advertising revenue (or missing out entirely) are largely over. From Google's point of view, they are just closing the loop. It is a shame because the mutually beneficial relationship between Google and sites has driven a huge amount of the tech economy. Sometimes this has been bad (and advertising is a scourge for many reasons, I can't believe I am defending it) but in general the web would be a lot less useful if people couldn't make money of advertising. I think long-term sites will stop relying on advertising and go with payments or memberships for information. This will hurt everyone but be disastrous for Google if they cannot spider up-to-date information. It will also hurt the free flow of information that we now enjoy. What is really galling is that with all the impressive AI summaries, the search results themselves seem to be getting a lot worse[0]. Many times I have used Google and the AI summary is pretty good but the actual page the summary is from is buried well down in the search results. Is this something they are doing deliberately to make the AI summary seem more useful? [0] An example I blogged about: https://sheep.horse/2025/4/yo_google%2C_thanks_for_the_ai_overview_but_your_sea.html https://sheep.horse/2025/4/yo_google%2C_thanks_for_the_ai_ov...
arp242 1y ago
It is impossible for any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, to deduce travel advice based on any prior knowledge. You need to actually go to these places and see what it's like. I don't know of any more clear and obvious example of "AI uses your content, robs you of your income, and gives nothing in return" than this. Whether AI (currently) gives "better" answers or not is rather besides the point.
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  We will disagree on whether content on travel on the internet is such richly experiential. We will also disagree if displacement of work due to new technology qualifies as "robbing", as any advancement is then "robbing".
  - arp242 1y ago
    AI is trained on this content and content like it. It is literally and directly used. You can't just handwave and then say the content wasn't worth it in the first place when it's directly the input, or use some semantic sleight of hand as if it's just some $newer_thing replacing $older_thing with no direction connection to it.
bgwalter 1y ago
Stealing other people's output and then cutting them off from discovery isn't a right either. Since politicians do not protect us from these criminals, we are fortunate that no one except for CEOs under the influence of cocaine wants "AI".
- thedevilslawyer 1y ago
  You (and others) keep using "stealing" and "robbing". I get emotions are high because of the impact of AI, but in no meaningful/legal sense is this true. Is there space for nuanced/critical discussion?
  - bgwalter 1y ago
    I do have a reply, but I'll save it for an article that stays on the front page so people will see it. This interesting article has dropped to page 3 within minutes.
    - camel_Snake 1y ago
      Would you describe this new, lower ranking as censorship?
      - ipaddr 1y ago
        Yes.
  - toss1 1y ago
    One organization has already monopolistic power. It encourages, with monetary rewards thousands to change careers to build properties "written by people for people", with a clear exchange: "you build good human content, we'll promote it". Then they unilaterally change the deal to basically, "you create the content, we will take it and without attribution, slice & dice it into our automated output". It is straight-up bait and switch, and absolutely unethical. Just because it was not planned a decade in advance and was just opportunistic does not make it any more ethical (that'd be like arguing it was more ethical for you to steal a car because the keys were dropped next to it vs planning to hotwire the car). And yes, I'm 100% in agreement with the caveats that building a business based on someone else's platform is like building a house on sand — a definitely risky idea. But the risk that the big player will change their platform is one thing, the risk they'll actively steal from you is another risk people weren't taking.
eviks 1y ago
What's your reference re. what most people want? Or at least a reference that AI advice is better, more specific, and its references aren't fake?
flenserboy 1y ago
it's not a right, but it shouldn't be impeded. google does everything it can not to give actual search results — the terrible AI slop at the top, page after page of ads, & the elimination of the long tail, where reality was once allowed to surface. now we get hallucinations & paid content. treating this as if it is an improvement sounds crazed.
ezst 1y ago
Reading this comment is depressing. How can you be so naive as to think that Google has your best interests in mind (and not their pockets')? They will absolutely serve you the content that has you stick on their walled garden for the longest, misdirecting you along the way, and serving you nonsense and fake content if that's what it takes. And you don't have to take my word for it, that's what Google search has been doing for the best part of a decade: deteriorating search results and placing partner's/own links/SEO slop more and more prominently on their first results page. Monopolies encourage that. Also you seem to be believing that LLMs are somehow a source of truth. Here I've got bad news for you: LLMs are political machines "aligned" (biased by design) by slave labourers who are in no way competent nor neutral. They are opinion producing/repeating pieces that you shouldn't take at face value, with a knowledge cutoff in the past and no ability to adapt to real world events. How do you expect LLMs to fare (and the state of the world to be bettered) once all your travel recommendations are AI generated, subsequently digested and repeated by other AIs? Depressing.
kebokyo 1y ago
Who is “most people”? AI has seen mass adoption, but trust is still low and many are aware of how it can make errors. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/ai-and-technology/trust-attitudes-and-use-of-ai.html https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/ai-and-technology/trust-...
- ezst 1y ago
  > AI has seen mass adoption Yeah, on the end-user side (so, discounting the chatbots, the dark patterns and the always-on features shoved down our throats), AI hasn't even seen as much mass adoption as crypto has. But even if it had, once the venture capital propping all this has dried out, nobody will be willing to foot the exorbitant costs of running inference.
emushack 1y ago
That's a helluva based take right there. Organic traffic is NOT a right? What are your personal opinions on the first amendment?
const_cast 1y ago
> Most people don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us much better and specific advice, with references, when we want it. Yes, because as we all know Google search's AI has been nothing but a hit. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go eat my designated 3 small rocks for today.

Krasnol 1y ago

> Most people don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us much better and specific advice, with references, when we want it. They may not want that now, they might want it back if they get used to the google AI experience for a bit longer. The amount of false information I got from this thing in the short time it's been forced upon me is staggering. My brain already started to filter out this part of the search results.

sampullman 1y ago

I haven't been able to get much practical travel advice from AI yet, any tips? For stuff like hiking routes, permitting, local cuisine, etc. I don't think it can replace a good blog from an experienced person at this point.

thedevilslawyer 1y ago
I'd like to engage. Can you give a specific example? We can make an honest attempt to see what the old vs AI options for it looks like. Both of us will walk away a bit more informed, and share here with others as well.
- sampullman 1y ago
  What do you mean? I use AI plenty and am aware of the capabilities. AI will give good surface level advice and sometimes point to decent sources. If I'm looking for e.g. a good hike in a specific area near me, I know the blogs that will have directions, pics, and GPX data for all the routes. These are found via word of mouth, search, and local forums.
FinnLobsien 1y ago
It depends. I've found o3 exceptional at finding things off the beaten path. I told it "I will be in city A, B and C in [month]" and would love to find out what to do. I have a car, am willing to drive and generally care most about gastronomy, food and culture. There's also flexibility in terms of timing and stays." It read things like websites of municipalities of surrounding towns and found local food festivals in towns I never would've found out about otherwise. It's exactly the kind of stuff I'd previously read the experienced person's blog for.
arrowsmith 1y ago
It's a trade-off. AI gives you speed but lower quality. Blog posts are higher quality but take longer to find/curate. For hiking routes, I ask AI for a list of suggested hiking routes in [area] based on my criteria (e.g. dog friendly, accessible by public transport, whatever) Then I google the specific suggested routes to fact-check the AI and get more detailed/reliable info.
- sampullman 1y ago
  That's true. I'm not anti AI or anything, I use it for plenty of things where search falls short or has decayed due to SEO spam I guess it comes down to knowing where to find valuable information. If you already have known quality sources, AI is currently inferior. Where I live I'm lucky to have tons of trails that have been meticulously mapped out and the made available (with images, directions, gear recommendations, etc.) on various blogs. I don't see AI being able to totally replace that in its current state, especially due to the semi-dynamic nature of the data.
wslh 1y ago
My experience with AI is that prompting LLMs tends to fail when the task involves returning a long list of alternatives and/or selecting niche options unless the user explicitly names them.
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  Do it iteratively. Ask the LLM for a long list of alternatives but without detail, only the names. Then start a new chat, paste in the list of names, and ask for more detail.
  - wslh 1y ago
    I've done this several times when benchmarking lesser-known companies, and manual compilation using a search engine consistently outperformed LLMs even when those companies are part of the model's training data. My intuition (could be completely wrong) is that lesser-known companies have much less density around them that popular brands, except if you are very specific. It would be great if this could be tweaked somehow.
ezst 1y ago
I wouldn't expect them to. Large language models compress the information at a high-level. If you need specifics, you need a search engine and a data set. LLMs specifically aren't that, despite all the fuss and hype.

fidotron 1y ago

> The article treats as axiom that organic traffic is a right. It's not. Agreed, but traffic has been the substitute for monetary rewards so far. If they aren't sending the traffic then someone is going to start to need to pay for surfacing and verifying information directly.

thedevilslawyer 1y ago
It's an open market that will step up to meet the need. IMO, we can't hold back innovation for web-1.0 based text articles + text search model.
- fidotron 1y ago
  That would be believable if copyright was enforced appropriately on existing AI training data. The big problem with this is it means anything really interesting will no longer be published in the open.
  - throw10920 1y ago
    I hope that's true. The appropriate response to Google and OpenAI committing mass content/effort theft via AI training should be the disappearance of things that they can steal. Unfortunately, there's enough slop that the average user will probably just continue using the AI, because it's so much easier that the quality floor they're willing to hit is very low.
  - debesyla 1y ago
    As a decade long blogger I am actually thinking about writing more to paper magazines now - a 1000 paper magazine readers are more than 100 from rare Google traffic (:
    - fidotron 1y ago
      I'm going there: I think the same is becoming true here. A couple of days ago one of the web games in my profile frontpaged here, and while it generated a lot of traffic it was nothing like previous times. I have had much more trouble with large private mailing lists linking to things, which also leads to a more condensed rush when everyone looks at once. Organic traffic generally appears dead, Google or not.

Aldipower 1y ago

And where the training data for your AI advice comes from?

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
From Reddit and user forums of course.
thedevilslawyer 1y ago
Factual data mostly came from sources like wikipedia, news and social forums. I see these as continuing. Opinion data - from all other SEO sites. These were low signal mostly, and AI seems to have got the general gist of how to structure content for consumption. So rather information reaching our mind through a SEO writer, it's now being AI written, which is atleast more standardized, and can be grounded more easily, and personalized to boot.
- Aldipower 1y ago
  No SEO writer reaches my mind. You're leaving some things out. I am able to collect my information wisely. But if Google suppresses organic sites, they are not all SEO, then I just won't use Google anymore. My training data question is still valid. Social forums are also organic btw..
- pmontra 1y ago
  But if nobody write SEO content anymore because questions to AI remove all human traffic to those sites, where will AI find up to date opinions? Facebook ? Instagram? Meta will block Google from scraping them or ask money. Booking? Same for Microsoft. Tripadvisor? They better have to buy it soon. Or AI will invent opinions based on the better bid. That would be an extension of the ad business and sponsored contents too.
HamsterDan 1y ago
That cat is out of the bag, don't you think? Even if the US passes a strict law protecting copyright owners from having their works used to train AI, China is not going to obey that law, so US companies will just fall behind.

hulitu 1y ago

> when AI gives us much better and specific advice When. At the moment, not.

NitpickLawyer 1y ago

> don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us A bit of a tangential anecdote, on the subject of "human written" stuff pre AI. Circa 99-2000 I knew a US company that would hire students from CEE to write travel content for their many .com properties. The students were instructed to write "as if they'd travelled there", or "as if you're living there", or "in an official tour-guide style", and so on. Judging by how spread the content of my friend's writing was, and how "stereotypical" the other pieces were on those properties (that we found after searching for known content), it was pretty clear that nothing on those sites was genuine. Everything was fake! Since then I take everything with a bit of cynicism, knowing how much of the "natural, organic content" is in fact faked with low-paid contributors. But hey, during those times the gig was pretty good for my friend doing it.

6stringmerc 1y ago

Citation needed. Who are these “most people” and do they actually have money to spend? AI frequently cites references based on human generated content. Often it does a terrible job of it in my experience. I searched for a very specific name and the Google AI returned a “profile” and the link to the person’s social media account was displayed the name that I’d searched for but the AI directed me to a completely different person WITH A DIFFERENT NAME as the link destination. Why the hell would I trust it with travel plans if it get such basic, easily validated challenges so very wrong? So unless you have a citation for your claim, and even then one that meets some basic credentials of rigor, then you’re flat out wrong. The purpose of a search engine is to direct organic traffic, not function as fucking bait.

AndrewStephens 1y ago

I think the days of Google driving traffic to sites then splitting the advertising revenue (or missing out entirely) are largely over. From Google's point of view, they are just closing the loop. It is a shame because the mutually beneficial relationship between Google and sites has driven a huge amount of the tech economy. Sometimes this has been bad (and advertising is a scourge for many reasons, I can't believe I am defending it) but in general the web would be a lot less useful if people couldn't make money of advertising. I think long-term sites will stop relying on advertising and go with payments or memberships for information. This will hurt everyone but be disastrous for Google if they cannot spider up-to-date information. It will also hurt the free flow of information that we now enjoy. What is really galling is that with all the impressive AI summaries, the search results themselves seem to be getting a lot worse[0]. Many times I have used Google and the AI summary is pretty good but the actual page the summary is from is buried well down in the search results. Is this something they are doing deliberately to make the AI summary seem more useful? [0] An example I blogged about: https://sheep.horse/2025/4/yo_google%2C_thanks_for_the_ai_overview_but_your_sea.html https://sheep.horse/2025/4/yo_google%2C_thanks_for_the_ai_ov...

arp242 1y ago

It is impossible for any intelligence, artificial or otherwise, to deduce travel advice based on any prior knowledge. You need to actually go to these places and see what it's like. I don't know of any more clear and obvious example of "AI uses your content, robs you of your income, and gives nothing in return" than this. Whether AI (currently) gives "better" answers or not is rather besides the point.

thedevilslawyer 1y ago
We will disagree on whether content on travel on the internet is such richly experiential. We will also disagree if displacement of work due to new technology qualifies as "robbing", as any advancement is then "robbing".
- arp242 1y ago
  AI is trained on this content and content like it. It is literally and directly used. You can't just handwave and then say the content wasn't worth it in the first place when it's directly the input, or use some semantic sleight of hand as if it's just some $newer_thing replacing $older_thing with no direction connection to it.

bgwalter 1y ago

Stealing other people's output and then cutting them off from discovery isn't a right either. Since politicians do not protect us from these criminals, we are fortunate that no one except for CEOs under the influence of cocaine wants "AI".

thedevilslawyer 1y ago
You (and others) keep using "stealing" and "robbing". I get emotions are high because of the impact of AI, but in no meaningful/legal sense is this true. Is there space for nuanced/critical discussion?
- bgwalter 1y ago
  I do have a reply, but I'll save it for an article that stays on the front page so people will see it. This interesting article has dropped to page 3 within minutes.
  - camel_Snake 1y ago
    Would you describe this new, lower ranking as censorship?
    - ipaddr 1y ago
      Yes.
- toss1 1y ago
  One organization has already monopolistic power. It encourages, with monetary rewards thousands to change careers to build properties "written by people for people", with a clear exchange: "you build good human content, we'll promote it". Then they unilaterally change the deal to basically, "you create the content, we will take it and without attribution, slice & dice it into our automated output". It is straight-up bait and switch, and absolutely unethical. Just because it was not planned a decade in advance and was just opportunistic does not make it any more ethical (that'd be like arguing it was more ethical for you to steal a car because the keys were dropped next to it vs planning to hotwire the car). And yes, I'm 100% in agreement with the caveats that building a business based on someone else's platform is like building a house on sand — a definitely risky idea. But the risk that the big player will change their platform is one thing, the risk they'll actively steal from you is another risk people weren't taking.

eviks 1y ago

What's your reference re. what most people want? Or at least a reference that AI advice is better, more specific, and its references aren't fake?

flenserboy 1y ago

it's not a right, but it shouldn't be impeded. google does everything it can not to give actual search results — the terrible AI slop at the top, page after page of ads, & the elimination of the long tail, where reality was once allowed to surface. now we get hallucinations & paid content. treating this as if it is an improvement sounds crazed.

ezst 1y ago

Reading this comment is depressing. How can you be so naive as to think that Google has your best interests in mind (and not their pockets')? They will absolutely serve you the content that has you stick on their walled garden for the longest, misdirecting you along the way, and serving you nonsense and fake content if that's what it takes. And you don't have to take my word for it, that's what Google search has been doing for the best part of a decade: deteriorating search results and placing partner's/own links/SEO slop more and more prominently on their first results page. Monopolies encourage that. Also you seem to be believing that LLMs are somehow a source of truth. Here I've got bad news for you: LLMs are political machines "aligned" (biased by design) by slave labourers who are in no way competent nor neutral. They are opinion producing/repeating pieces that you shouldn't take at face value, with a knowledge cutoff in the past and no ability to adapt to real world events. How do you expect LLMs to fare (and the state of the world to be bettered) once all your travel recommendations are AI generated, subsequently digested and repeated by other AIs? Depressing.

kebokyo 1y ago

Who is “most people”? AI has seen mass adoption, but trust is still low and many are aware of how it can make errors. https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/ai-and-technology/trust-attitudes-and-use-of-ai.html https://kpmg.com/xx/en/our-insights/ai-and-technology/trust-...

ezst 1y ago
> AI has seen mass adoption Yeah, on the end-user side (so, discounting the chatbots, the dark patterns and the always-on features shoved down our throats), AI hasn't even seen as much mass adoption as crypto has. But even if it had, once the venture capital propping all this has dried out, nobody will be willing to foot the exorbitant costs of running inference.

emushack 1y ago

That's a helluva based take right there. Organic traffic is NOT a right? What are your personal opinions on the first amendment?

const_cast 1y ago

> Most people don't want to read an article on travel advice when AI gives us much better and specific advice, with references, when we want it. Yes, because as we all know Google search's AI has been nothing but a hit. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go eat my designated 3 small rocks for today.