Below are the most recent 30 comments. I try to keep it clean of comment spam, but some times things
get through and it takes me several hours to get to it. So please excuse any of that comment spam.
Microsoft just produced a 2,000 word article arguing AI search should be measured in "visibility" not ROI - its ont here blog. The problem is advertisers want ROI now or they won't spend.
And it's already happening. Organic click-through rates for PPC alone dropped 54.6% year-over-year. Advertisers are pulling back budgets. YouTube has gone from 2-3 ads per video to 5-7 as google trying to use youtube to offset, and half of youtube users now use ad blockers, and more and more people are starting to just block the ads and actively go find an adblocker. What you made me realise John is they control everything - governments, content, regulations and that wont change - but what they can't control is the purchase. I think we will see massive change after xmas, if not then sept 26 when the apple deal is back on the table.
@John made me realise something simple.
None of it really matters. What you typed above does not matter. Not the lobbying, not the legislation, not the hype. Because at the end of the day, they don’t control the advertiser’s purse.
And they don’t control the public’s either. That’s the end of the chain, the buyer and the spender.
If there’s no clean flow between those two, the whole system breaks. And that’s exactly what we’re watching happen, an AI strategy failure, and it will be interesting to see what will be done if anything - maybe the whole thing will just implode.
Thank you John. You have made me put it all in perspective. you're totally right. They can control governments, steal content, threaten tariffs, but they can't control the one thing that matters: the advertiser's purse ROI is ROI. If the money doesn't come back, the money stops going in. And you're right about OpenAI. They're burning billions and that guy that runs it is so fake and people are starting to ask questions like when when are you going to ROIand he was speaking about creating videos using sora in the corn market lol. Datadonkey said that the public is subsidising AI through their energy bills without knowing it. When people all know that the backlash will be bad.
The whole thing is built on the assumption that someone else will pay. Advertisers will pay for no clicks. The public will pay for energy. Publishers will give content for free.
But the main revenue (advertisers) are starting to say no you don't control our money, our shareholders do and if were not making ROI, bye bye
Yes, AI isn't making the returns that they want it to be; mainly, in the case of OpenAI, they're losing more money than they are making. As I think it was @codecommander:disqus , could be wrong (it could've been Uncle), he posted an article about how energy companies are building new power plants for data centres and charging the general population. If the population knew about this, they would be a substantial political backlash but the general population don't know. How OpenAI will make money eventually for answers is anyone's guess because everyone expects answers to be free. OpenAI will never make enough money to keep it free, I'm guessing. OpenAI will either be bought or go bankrupt, there'll be a huge backlash if Trump buys it for the government.
You make a great point and it got me thinking and researching, I did not realise it was Europe as well. Okay, so let's play this out. Google is protected. Governments are allowing them to scrape our content for free. So let's follow their AI strategy to its conclusion. No websites means no original content to keep training but this is minor as they can get content from other places. AI-only answers mean no clicks, remember his speech no click internet is there strategy. No clicks mean no ROI for advertisers. Advertisers stop advertising - and we're already seeing that happening even with the web still functioning. They're killing their own business model. Search advertising is worth $175 billion to them. They think they can change the ROI definition (make me laugh out loud) there is no way that can happen. No one is going to pay for answers, the internet has been free for 25 years. Yes, AI companies are offering free use for now, but they're all losing billions in the process. And most queries are basic - "what's the weather today like I said before.
In all this, it's the ad market that isn't doing what Google expected. They assumed advertisers would keep paying for placement alongside AI answers. They were wrong. Advertisers won't pay to sit next to AI slop that doesn't convert.
And AI isn't free to run. Someone has to pay for that infrastructure. YouTube is already losing big creators and viewers due to having to watch 4 minutes of ads to watch 1 minute of some dude in his bedroom. It doesn't look good for Google if advertisers keep rejecting placement beside AI-generated content that delivers no returns.
They will win the battle for control. But they may (or will) destroy the thing that made it valuable - us.
<blockquote>... those are completely other topics than AI.</blockquote>If that's the case, then why are you rambling on with BS about AI in Barry's post about search ranking volatility? Take your own advice. LOL
It has everything to do with the topics above. You said innocent till proven guilty, and Google's prior three convictions underscore Google's failure to abide by the law. Therefore Google should be prohibited from using AI. Three strike law should apply IMO - break up Google and send Spamdar Pinchya to that El Salvador prison for life for committing economic crimes against humanity.
Consultations show the evolution of the law - and you know that. By the way: There is law governing mining and copying for automated analysis under the Section 29A CDPA of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act <u><b>1988</b></u>, proving that AI training is not inherently illegal - disputes concern scope and licensing, not a statutory ban. The UK Government Copyright and AI Consultation explicitly discusses expanding rights and opt-outs, which would make <u>no sense</u> if training were already forbidden outright.
The amount of revenue and tax lost for a few AI firms across the water will mean it will be outlawed in Europe. USA big tech is not that important over here.
<blockquote>that in this life the rule is: until proven guilty.</blockquote>Google has been proven guilty three times already in the USA. Epic Games v. Google, DOJ v. Google (Judge Meathead/Search) and DOJ v. Google (Judge Brinkema/Ads). Google has also been fined billions of dollars for their evildoings around the world. So what's your point knowing it's fact that Google is a shitty convict company?
<blockquote>I am a trained barrister before I did this. So yes, they are breaking UK law (...)</blockquote>They are not - see e.g. <a href="https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-impact-on-creative-industries/">https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence-impact-on-creative-industries/</a> .
I'm not crying because of AI. Instead I'm using our Priceifier to pass on the costs of harm AI has inflicted on us to Google's users. You're the one crying for someone here to believe your BS, and I must admit it's funny watching everyone shit on you with facts that refute your blatant lies. LOL
I am a trained barrister before I did this. So yes, they are breaking UK law in my training. I would not know the US side. They know they will be screwed if someone takes this to court in UK for world-wide content theft. It does not take much IQ to know that it is not fair use which is the only defence. If you make the content creator poor due to training based on their work then that is not fair use. You must have a low IQ to believe otherwise.
<blockquote>How am I inconsistent?</blockquote>Erm - you wrote like a crying baby because of AI and use it for your profile picture? Welcome to the new reality - the one that you're already using yourself, obviously.
I'm not Bobby. But I'm obviously one of the very rare people here that do write the truth. What winds you up are facts. Not the best sign for a fact based branch in change ...
How am I inconsistent? Would you hire a rapist to work with your other employees? Why then do you defend an economic rapist such as the Google Crime Syndicate with multiple antitrust convictions? Are you just clueless?
You're probably right. I was just holding out for him to scream about fascists, being abused, or his pretend butt pregnancy before official confirmation it's another new Bobby troll account.
<blockquote>It is copyright theft.</blockquote>You're free to take a lawyer, go to court and let the juristiction decide if it is. Until then it's not, but your opinion - even if I understand you, but laws work as they do.
And what advantage do you have with your warped view? It is copyright theft. My images are in AI overviews along with things that came from my brain that no-one else would know. They stole my thoughts and reworked them spun the content and served it with a photo of me beside it. That is theft.
As of right now she's still in office.
The courts ruled Perlmutter is entitled to continue serving because her agency is housed in the Legislative Branch and her primary role is to advise Congress meaning trump has no authority to fire her, she must be annoyed.
It's a shame that you didn't understand how generative AI really works. Maybe just read up on the topic.
... I understand that you don't have time: the fall semester is coming to an end and you're obviously going to fail the basic law course because you don't know the elementary principles of the law of your county.