Plagiarism Engine: Google’s Content-Swiping AI Could Break the Internet

[Admin]

The AI service is stealing content from publishers, then using it to discourage people from visiting their sites. It’s a bad user experience that could kill the open web.

Plagiarism Engine: Google’s Content-Swiping AI Could Break the Internet : Read more

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Bing has shown a better way to incorporate AI, making its chatbot the non-default option and citing every piece of information it uses with a specific link back (the links aren’t very prominent, however).

Bing's source links are cited in-line as superscript note numbers, referenced at the bottom with the primary site name, similar to Wikipedia. Mousing over the source links brings up the page title, and in the Bing app it loads source previews.

How is that not prominent without being invasive?

 

[Deleted member 14196]

I guess it’s back to the old days because there is no good search engine anymore. It’s all BS and you better know what it is you’re looking for and dig deep and hard.

I don’t use stupid bots, and now I have to ignore all the garbage they generate

 

[Math Geek]

I'm part of the non-google using 9% but this will def keep me permanently in that 9%.

I currently use duck duck go and find it a good substitute. Comparing it to Google searches side by side over a couple years shows me I'm not missing anything not using google. Well I am missing a lot of ads n paid links but that's about it. I find what I need on duck duck go.

 

[setx]

If only you put the same effort in reviewing hardware...

And your links "best <anything>" that you just have to put in almost all articles are exactly the same as what google is doing: they are best for you, not the users.

 

[lmcnabney]

Not sure how AI creates content is any different than how humans do it. The algorithm just lives a human life looking at other people's art before synthesizing its own. Artists just don't admit IP theft when their content is clearly influenced by others.

 

[USAFRet]

Not sure how AI creates content is any different than how humans do it. The algorithm just lives a human life looking at other people's art before synthesizing its own. Artists just don't admit IP theft when their content is clearly influenced by others.

This AI isn't creating anything.

It is grabbing other peoples work, conflating that into a mostly human sounding thing, and claiming it as its own content.

Plagiarism by a human is bad. This is worse.

 

[setx]

It is grabbing other peoples work, conflating that into a mostly human sounding thing, and claiming it as its own content.

Surprise: that's exactly what most "news" sites do nowadays (at least, hardware ones). They are rehashing official marketing info or other sites.

Sure, there are probably links to source stuffed somewhere, but amount of valuable information added is the same as AI if not even less.

 

[USAFRet]

Surprise: that's exactly what most "news" sites do nowadays (at least, hardware ones). They are rehashing official marketing info or other sites.

Sure, there are probably links to source stuffed somewhere, but amount of valuable information added is the same as AI if not even less.

2 things....

Most get there content from a known content distributor. And pay for the content.
Also, they generally reference where they got it from.


This thing is grabbing text from elsewhere, and claiming it as original content.
Straight up plagiarism. Even worse, plagiarism from a non human.

 

[setx]

Most get there content from a known content distributor. And pay for the content.

It looks more like "get paid" than "pay for" (at least for hardware news).

 

[USAFRet]

It looks more like "get paid" than "pay for" (at least for hardware news).

That too.

But at least that is a bit of back and forth.

Rather than just stealing and claiming as its own.

 

[usertests]

There was a time before search engines. Go ahead, break everything.

If you can't find it, you didn't deserve to get to it.

 

[wbfox]

"Google’s spokesperson also compared the SGE box to featured snippets, noting that publishers today usually want their articles to appear in featured snippets because those links drive traffic back."

Am I the only one that interpreted this as: Either we use your work with a pity link or you don't get found?

And with regard to Bing and the rest of ChatGPT's ilk in the search function....they all are plagiarism or more charitably parrots. As the author so neatly put it, "until they are connected to robotic bodies that go out and gather information first-hand, they will never be a source of truth." They can only ever give you that which already exists from a human's work (until the second wave, which will be AI trained on the crappy AI generated internet). To pretend that this is AI, is a marketers pipe dream. Google once had a good, perhaps great search. The internet corrupted and twisted them into a thing that at the top level isn't even named Google any more. If you have any sort of hope for things that were for the sake of cost, expediency and naivety trained on that internet, well, Google search that third thing in the list.

 

[NinoPino]

I'm part of the non-google using 9% but this will def keep me permanently in that 9%.

I currently use duck duck go and find it a good substitute. Comparing it to Google searches side by side over a couple years shows me I'm not missing anything not using google. Well I am missing a lot of ads n paid links but that's about it. I find what I need on duck duck go.

I also use duckduck as my only search engine but to be honest, when the result is very hard to find, google found what duck does not.

 

[NinoPino]

The title of the article let think that google is the only one to make plagiarism. But also ChatGPT, and all the search engines that use generative AI to present the search results do exactly the same.
Imho a better title would have been : "Plagiarism Engines :Content-Swiping AI Could Break the Internet"

 

[RodroX]

If we already have a mess with traditional (accelerated) computing + AI, wait till AI can use quantum computing.

I'm usually fascinated with technology, and I know how good AI can be to help with complex medicine problems and other important fields, but not so thrilled with it lately, not considering the whole picture.

Engineers, physicist, mathematicians and many others professions have a tough road aheads to protect us from ourselves, now we add AI and quantum computing to the mix, future will be fun .

 

[salgado18]

About the inaccuracies, it feels like this:

Google: I'm very fast at doing math.
User: ok, then how much is 42 x 67?
Google: 12.
User: that's not the right answer!
Google: but it is fast. Here's an ad.

 

[derekullo]

The title of the article let think that google is the only one to make plagiarism. But also ChatGPT, and all the search engines that use generative AI to present the search results do exactly the same.
Imho a better title would have been : "Plagiarism Engines :Content-Swiping AI Could Break the Internet"

ChatGPT by definition can only plagiarize.
Sadly that also means it might cheat off of the dumb person in class.

 

[vehekos]

One of the reasons for which I used google, is because it was anonymous.

I'm not using any web AI that requires to open an account.

 

[Sehmish]

Bing's source links are cited in-line as superscript note numbers, referenced at the bottom with the primary site name, similar to Wikipedia. Mousing over the source links brings up the page title, and in the Bing app it loads source previews.

How is that not prominent without being invasive?

Except that Bing's citations are often wrong (e.g. they link to information sources that have nothing to do with the information cited (though when you see the page title you could easily believe that the information you were searching for *could* be included there, making it extra misleading), send you to broken links, and links verifying that bing's answers were completely inaccurate). The "citations" provide a veneer of legitimacy that most people won't bother to click through on. "Oh, it provided a citation, that must mean the information is correct." Nope. I use Bing and ChatGPT, both of which give false information. Where do I go to verify basic facts? Google. I guess that's not going to be an option for much longer.