Will AI Kill The Web?

Will AI Kill The Web?

The Atlantic is out with a delicious piece of doomerism: It’s The End of the Web As We Know It. Were it not for the authors, Judith Donath and Bruce Schneier, I’d have passed right on by, because well-respected publications have been proclaiming the death of the Web for more than a decade. By and large they’ve been proven directionally right, but it’s taking a lot longer than most predicted. Much like the Earth’s coral reefs, the Web has been dying off in waves. In their piece, Donath and Schneier argue that generative AI augurs the Web’s final stage of life. The coup de GPT, if you will.

Donath and Schneier are more thoughtful than your average trend-spotting feature writers. Donath, a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, is the kind of digital polymath I’ve admired for years, but who’s been relatively quiet of late. No longer. And Schneier, a security expert, writes smart stuff about nearly everything I care about as it relates to the Internet. It’s fair to say I’ll read just about anything he writes.

Donath and Schneier argue that large-language models will kill the open web by replacing SEO — the practice of optimizing search results to drive web traffic — with “Large Language Model Optimization,” or LLMO. “SEO will morph into LLMO,” the authors write, “the incipient industry of manipulating AI-generated material to serve clients’ interests.”

The authors predict the rise of an LLMO industry catering to politicians, corporations, and pretty much everyone else with a vested interest in controlling the information ecosystem. Just as spammy “made for advertising” sites like Demand Media (and countless others) polluted the SEO-driven landscape of the past 25 years, the LLMO industry will pollute the emerging world of ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot. Creators will tire of their work being turned into fodder for LLM’s automatic Turk machines, and as a result, the open web will die:

Eventually, people may stop writing, stop filming, stop composing — at least for the open, public web. People will still create, but for small, select audiences, walled-off from the content-hoovering AIs. The great public commons of the web will be gone.

This is a compelling and seemingly sensible argument, but as I read it, something didn’t feel quite right. The piece asserts any number of assumptions which are either not currently true, or may become false as the Web co-evolves with generative AI technologies and platforms.

I think the core problem is the assumption that a “large language model optimization” industry in about to emerge. This presumes that the companies who invest in large-language models — Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Meta, and a few others — are motivated to encourage such an industry to flourish in the first place. I’m not so sure that’s the case. As with nearly everything related to business, you have to follow the money to understand the incentives. If LLMs are driven, in large part, by an advertising model similar to the one that built search and the current incarnation of the Web, then I’d tend to agree that we would see SEO-like behaviors emerge in LLM systems.

But so far LLMs seem to be adopting a direct-to-consumer model of subscription, which bends the economic incentives of large platform models toward high-quality, useful results. Besides a few nutjobs on X, no one wants to subscribe to a chatbot that spouts manipulated garbage. One could just as easily argue that the trend of subscription for LLMs augurs well for the future of the Web — high-quality sites will increasingly be in demand, and platforms will have to figure out how to reward them by sharing subscription revenue flows with publishers who provide them with dependable raw material.

Platforms like Google and Meta won’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts — they’ll be forced to by their need to compete for a consumer’s loyalty, usage, and dollars. Currently LLMs are exploring one-off business development deals with publishers — OpenAI with Axel Springer, Google with Reddit, Apple posing as the good guy for the positive publicity. This approach will never scale, but it might inform a more automated approach as the Web evolved. To get there, we’ll need to solve more basic problems with LLMs: Opacity. It’s impossible to determine the value of a site like, say, Searchblog, if no one understands how the LLM creates value from it in the first place.

But that’s a Gordian knot for another day.

You can follow whatever I’m doing next by signing up for my site newsletter here. Thanks for reading.

Kerim Kfuri

Global Supply Chain Expert | Public Speaker | Author of Supply Chain Ups and Downs | CEO, The Atlas Network | Follow for daily philosophy & leadership insights

10 个月

The idea that Large Language Model Optimization (LLMO) will take over and extinguish the open web—turning creators’ content into mere AI fodder—is intriguing, but relies on a lot of assumptions. Central to these is the emergence of an LLMO industry aimed at manipulating AI outputs for vested interests. However, platforms will need to balance commercial benefits with the demand for transparency and fairness in how content is valued and utilized.

回复
Tara Calishain

New York Times bestselling author. Busily obsessed with search engines, databases, and online information collections since 1996. GOOGLE HACKS, OFFICIAL NETSCAPE GUIDE TO INTERNET RESEARCH, INFORMATION TRAPPING, etc.

10 个月

Fiddlesticks. If you dump a bunch of slime into a water tank, you haven't "killed" the water tank, you've just made it harder to get clean water. Unfortunately capable parties seem to have no interest/incentive to scour the tank and restore the water quality.

回复
John Mayo-Smith

Mayo In Motion

10 个月

Brands are interested in influencing LLM's because LLMs are influencers with brand preferences: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/rise-artificial-influencer-john-mayo-smith/

要查看或添加评论,请登录

John Battelle的更多文章

  • Why Haven't AI Agents Happened Yet?

    Why Haven't AI Agents Happened Yet?

    Three months ago I published my annual predictions, and while I rarely revisit them in the middle of the year, I do…

    5 条评论
  • AI Hype: Bad Data Is Bad Data.

    AI Hype: Bad Data Is Bad Data.

    New data highlighted in Casey Newton's Platformer newsletter codifies what most of us have already assumed: AI chatbot…

    1 条评论
  • When Did Tech Stop Being Magical?

    When Did Tech Stop Being Magical?

    I’ve been pondering something for a while now, but have held off “thinking out loud” about it because I was worried I…

    23 条评论
  • What Are You Reading, and How?

    What Are You Reading, and How?

    Nearly every conversation I've had over the past month has involved some variation of this question: What are you…

    3 条评论
  • Tech Has Replaced Finance As Too Big Too Fail

    Tech Has Replaced Finance As Too Big Too Fail

    I opened my annual predictions last week by noting that the technology industry had leapfrogged finance as the most…

    2 条评论
  • 2025: The Year of the Big Tech Flex

    2025: The Year of the Big Tech Flex

    This isn't going to be a normal year. 2025 will be strange, frenetic, and full of surprises, particularly for those of…

    7 条评论
  • Grading My 2024 Predictions

    Grading My 2024 Predictions

    2024 is in the books, so it’s time to grade my own homework. One year ago I posted my 2024 predictions, fresh off a…

    3 条评论
  • Bluesky Is Getting Big. Does That Mean Advertising Is Coming? (Yep).

    Bluesky Is Getting Big. Does That Mean Advertising Is Coming? (Yep).

    I’ve been in the business of making new kinds of media companies, media platforms, and media technologies since before…

    2 条评论
  • Generative AI Won't Work ... Unless We Change Our Approach

    Generative AI Won't Work ... Unless We Change Our Approach

    Listen up, tech oligarchs; lend an ear, simpering brohanions. We’re doing this generative AI thing all wrong, and if…

    2 条评论
  • Why BlueSky Is Taking Off

    Why BlueSky Is Taking Off

    Emily Liu at Bluesky has a timely post that I'd like to respond to. (Back in the day, when blogging was a thing, we did…

    5 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了