5 ms·

A lot of the comments here are along the lines of "websites are often hostile, and AI summaries are a better user experience" which I agree with for most cases.

A lot of the comments here are along the lines of "websites are often hostile, and AI summaries are a better user experience" which I agree with for most cases. I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on. If I create content like recipes, journalism etc, previously I had exclusive rights to my created content and could monetise it however I wanted. This has mostly led to what we have today, some high quality content, lots of low quality content, mostly monetised through user hostile ads. Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules. I still can't do that, but Google can if it's done through the mechanism of AI summaries. I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators. The best one is that we find some alternative, third way, for creators to monotise content while maintaining discoverability. I'm not sure what will happen, and I'm not denying the usefulness of AI summaries, but it feels easy to miss that, at their core, they're a fundamental reworking of the current economics of the internet.

nicbou 1y ago
It's crazy how few people see it that way. Big tech is capturing all the value created by content creators, and it's slowly strangling the independent web it feeds on. It's a parasitic relationship. Once the parasite has killed its host, it will feed on its users.
pjc50 1y ago
> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether Quite clearly heading in that direction, but with a twist: the only people left will be advertising or propaganda, if there's no money in authenticity or correctness.
- layer8 1y ago
  There was little to no money in authenticity or correctness in the heyday of home pages and personal blogs. People published because they were excited about sharing information and opinions. That was arguably the internet at its best.
MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on. This would be lovely. > I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators. More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!
- djeastm 1y ago
  I hope things turn out the way you suggest. If we could return to a pre-2000s, pre-Dotcom boom internet I would be ever so happy, but I'm skeptical.
- tonyedgecombe 1y ago
  >More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. Why would you do that if you thought it was going to be hoovered up by some giant corporation and spat out again for $20 a month with no attribution.
  - MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
    From my post: [B]ecause they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads.
  - anton-c 1y ago
    Because they like to make stuff more than they value a subscription. I'm gonna write music no matter what happens to it.
    - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
brainwad 1y ago
>If I create content like recipes ... previously I had exclusive rights to my created content Recipes are not protected by copyright law. That's _why_ recipe bloggers have resorted to editorialising recipes, because the editorial content is copyrightable.
- benrutter 1y ago
  Haha, you've exposed that I know absolutely nothing about copyright law! That's a great point, but I think my original point still stands if you swap out my full-of-holes example for a type of content that is copyrightable.
pantulis 1y ago
> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on. And this is the reason why Google took its sweet time to counter OpenAI's GPT3. They _had_ to come up with this, which admittedly disrupts the publishers business model but at least if Google is successful they will keep their moat as the first step in any sales funnel.
AlecSchueler 1y ago
> Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules This is not true, you absolutely could have republished a recipe with your own wording and user experience.

nicbou 1y ago

It's crazy how few people see it that way. Big tech is capturing all the value created by content creators, and it's slowly strangling the independent web it feeds on. It's a parasitic relationship. Once the parasite has killed its host, it will feed on its users.

pjc50 1y ago

> I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether Quite clearly heading in that direction, but with a twist: the only people left will be advertising or propaganda, if there's no money in authenticity or correctness.

layer8 1y ago
There was little to no money in authenticity or correctness in the heyday of home pages and personal blogs. People published because they were excited about sharing information and opinions. That was arguably the internet at its best.

MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago

> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on. This would be lovely. > I think the worst case scenario is that people stop publishing content on the web altogether. The most likely one is that search/summary engines eat up money that previously came from content creators. More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. No more “the top 25 hats in July 2025” AI slopfest SEO articles when I look for a hat, but a thoughtful series of reviews with no ads or affiliate links, just because someone is passionate about hats. The horror! The horror!

djeastm 1y ago
I hope things turn out the way you suggest. If we could return to a pre-2000s, pre-Dotcom boom internet I would be ever so happy, but I'm skeptical.
tonyedgecombe 1y ago
>More than likely, people return to publishing content because they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads. Why would you do that if you thought it was going to be hoovered up by some giant corporation and spat out again for $20 a month with no attribution.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 1y ago
  From my post: [B]ecause they love the subject matter and not because it is an angle to “create content” or “gain followers” or show ads.
- anton-c 1y ago
  Because they like to make stuff more than they value a subscription. I'm gonna write music no matter what happens to it.
  - tonyedgecombe 1y ago

brainwad 1y ago

>If I create content like recipes ... previously I had exclusive rights to my created content Recipes are not protected by copyright law. That's _why_ recipe bloggers have resorted to editorialising recipes, because the editorial content is copyrightable.

benrutter 1y ago
Haha, you've exposed that I know absolutely nothing about copyright law! That's a great point, but I think my original point still stands if you swap out my full-of-holes example for a type of content that is copyrightable.

pantulis 1y ago

> I think the main thing to be worried about is that this model is undermining the fundamental economic model the internet's currently based on. And this is the reason why Google took its sweet time to counter OpenAI's GPT3. They _had_ to come up with this, which admittedly disrupts the publishers business model but at least if Google is successful they will keep their moat as the first step in any sales funnel.

AlecSchueler 1y ago

> Previously, if I wanted to take a recipe from "strawberry-recipes.cool" and published it on my own website with a better user experience, that wouldn't have been allowed because of copyright rules This is not true, you absolutely could have republished a recipe with your own wording and user experience.