From Discovery to Stagnation: AI is Shaping the Future of Publishing

In the publishing and advertising industries, there's growing concern about the potential threats AI poses to publishers, news, and similar sectors. Many worry about implications for the free press and job security, rallying against these perceived threats. While these concerns are valid, the conversation needs a broader perspective.

Concerns vs. Reality

Free Press

AI doesn't inherently threaten the concept of a free press. The fundamental right to publish and express opinions remains intact; what changes is the audience size. AI may reduce the frequency of people consuming traditional news sources, but the essence of a free press persists. If people visit 50% less and 50% of sites shut down, enough sites will still cover every important aspect. Before the internet, we consumed news via television, newspapers, and radio, with fewer options, yet the concept of a free press was as strong.

Job Losses and Historical Context

The fear of job losses due to AI is real but mirrors fears from past technological advancements, fears that ended up not materializing in most cases. In the 18th century, 80% of the world's population worked in agriculture. Today, that number is around 5%, yet we don’t face 75% unemployment. Technological improvements in agriculture freed up labor for more productive and diverse occupations.

While the farmer's concern about world famine was genuine, it stemmed from self-interest bias. Today, the publishing and advertising industry's fears about AI could be similarly biased, rooted in the desire to preserve the status quo.

Even if the free press remains intact and job losses ultimately add efficiency to the market, there is a larger concern.

Content Discovery vs. Definitive Answers

Progress is driven by the continuous exchange of ideas. Millions contribute to this process, with evolution and innovation created by passing ideas back and forth. To exchange ideas, one needs to be exposed to ideas, adopt opinions, and discuss.

AI provides a single, definitive response, hindering the natural discovery process we're accustomed to. We often discover new content without realizing it, like reading various menus in restaurants over the years versus asking an AI for a single recommendation. While an AI's answer might be convenient, over time, we learn more about food by reading menus, trying new things, even dishes we didn’t like. This process of discovery and experimentation helps us evolve in ways that wouldn't happen in a one-answer world. The same context applies to discovering things on the web.

Search Engines

Search engines encourage users to explore multiple sources. On average, users visit 2-3 websites per search before finding the information they need. When including refinements and modifications to the search query, this number increases, potentially visiting 4-6 websites in total.

A personal experience with cocktail making: I used to search for recipes on Google, exploring multiple links. Some sites would add unique suggestions for upgrading a Margarita or an Old Fashioned. I evolved. Lately, I’ve been relying on ChatGPT and got a single, definitive recipe. While the cocktails are still great, my learning and creativity have plateaued. The shift from discovery to passive consumption limited my personal growth; I explore less than I used to.

When you apply the same concept to everything we are searching for, not just cocktails,relying on a single, definitive source as a means of gathering information prevents you from learning, testing, and adopting independent opinions. The less people discover content, the slower new ideas will be assimilated.

Discovery Within Websites

Websites are built for discovery. You go on a news site to learn the latest news about local politics, and while scrolling the homepage, you get exposed to news about climate change, celebrity gossip, the latest in sports, and so much more. The most successful sites are those that have perfected keeping their users reading and discovering more.

The same applies to almost every category. Surfing a recipe site to get one recipe, you get exposed to others. You might not cook those other recipes right away, but for those who love cooking, they save it, try later, or just learn something new.

The internet, whether it’s search engines or sites, is built around helping users discover more and more content. As they discover more content, opinions are shaped, skills improved, and ideas developed.

Frequency

The first time I heard about climate change, I wasn't really bothered. It took a lot of time for my mind to digest the threat. The pace of change is related to frequency—how often and how many times I was exposed.

When addressing frequency from a content discovery point of view, it’s more than just repeating the message; exposure alone isn't enough. Users need to spend real time consuming it, and that requires effort. Let’s look at this article as an example:

• The Writer Matters: Most people didn’t make it to this part; some left because they don’t relate to my writing style. The same people, hearing the same opinion from someone they enjoy reading, would have read everything and maybe adopted some ideas I shared. Different people saying the same things differently result in more readers digesting new information.
• Timing Matters: To read this article, you have to spend a lot of time, meaning if I “met” you at the wrong time, you wouldn’t. If others share the same content repeatedly, the chances of many writers “meeting” you at the right time will increase, resulting in more people reading this perspective.
• Counterargument: Many of you might not agree with me; some might want to prove me wrong by writing a counterargument. By doing so, they add another layer to the discussion. Fewer people discovering content will result in fewer pushbacks and counterarguments.

The Importance of Publishing

As sites receive less traffic, people will discover content less frequently, diminishing the crucial repetitive effect needed to drive any message. Additionally, we lose the diversity of people reading the same message in different styles, leading to fewer counterarguments and debates as exposure decreases.

AI as Counter-Technology to Historical Advancements

Technological advancements have historically helped people discover more information. Long ago, there was usually one source: a king, Church, or Rabbi, allowing only one point of view. New ideas took a long time to emerge. Newspapers provided 2-3 different points of view daily. Then came radio and TV, offering 10-15, and later, hundreds of channels and opinions in real-time. The internet allowed us to discover much more, giving access to multiple perspectives. Each new technology cannibalized old ones by being more efficient in exposing information. The internet replaced newspapers with easier access to content. Smartphones made it even easier than desktops. Every advancement resulted in more information, advancements equaled quantity.

AI, in the context of spreading information, does exactly the opposite. For the first time ever, we have a tech advancement that reduces the amount of information people will be exposed to. This is a huge setback; as people discover fewer opinions, we revert to historical times when there was one source of information. If AI existed long ago, its modules would be trained according to the available information at that time and would answer things like:

• Women shouldn't vote because they don't have the same IQ as men.
• Blacks were created to serve whites.
• Gay people shouldn't be accepted in our society.

And like old times, we risk making new ideas surface harder and less frequently. You can’t debate the king, you can’t debate God (pope, rabbi), and you can’t debate AI. Stagnation in human progress is the risk we are facing.

The State of Publishing and Progress

The free press is not in existential danger. Even if half of all news sites lost traffic or closed, sufficient coverage would still exist, maintaining the legal right to criticize the government or anyone else. However, the state of publishing reflects global discovery and learning, from cocktail tips to diverse news perspectives. Reduced exposure to varied opinions can slow human progress and innovation.

The number of active content sites and related jobs can be perceived as some kind of measurement tool to how much new information people are accessing. Each site, even small ones, represents individuals searching, reading, and learning. Every site that shuts down signifies a shift towards passive consumption of fixed answers.

While definitive answers offer convenience, AI must enhance our pursuit of knowledge, not limit it. The state of publishing is our crystal ball, predicting the pace of future progress. A healthy publishing industry, with thriving publishers, signifies a brighter future, not just for those working in publishing and advertising.