AI search could kill the web without new quality signals and revenue models

AI search could kill the web without new quality signals and revenue models

AI answers are killing content publishers, as they cause readers to stay on Google or on the chatbot of their choice, rather than navigating to dedicated websites. The end result could be catastrophic for the open web.

Alex Chan, assistant professor at Harvard Business School, floats that prediction based on an economic model he describes in a paper titled "AI and the collapse of the www."

A paper from Saharsh Agarwal, assistant professor at the Indian School of Business, and Ananya Sen, associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University entitled "The Impact of Google AI Overviews on Publisher Traffic and User Experience: Evidence from a Field Experiment," shows that Google AI Overviews "reduce outbound organic clicks by 39.8 percent and increase zero-click searches by 34.5 percent, without affecting sponsored clicks or overall search frequency."

A zero-click search is what happens when a search user's query gets answered on the search results page, so there's no need to click through to a source website.

"Overall, the results suggest that [AI Overviews] divert traffic away from publishers without improving the user experience or quality of engagement for websites," conclude Agarwal and Sen.

Available Now

Get GoPeek

Preview links without opening tabs. Available on Edge and Firefox. Chrome support coming soon.

Microsoft Edge

Add to Edge — free

→

Mozilla Firefox

Add to Firefox — free

→

Google Chrome Soon

Coming to the Chrome Web Store

Demo →

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has argued otherwise, to some skepticism and despite Pew research to the contrary.

Chan, from Harvard Business School, undertook his research to explore what has to be replaced to reimagine the market that AI is destroying.

The open web, he begins, is based on a bargain: "Publishers produce content. Search and social discovery send users to that content. Visits generate revenue."

In doing so, web visitors also generate information about informational quality through their clicks, subscriptions, and other interactions. These signals, he observes, help future visitors and search systems find quality sources.

"Generative AI changes this bargain," Chan continues. "An AI answer can use publisher content while keeping the user in the AI interface. Users may be better served in the short run. But the source may lose the visit, the revenue from the visit, and the source-level signal that the visit would have produced."

Chan's exploration of the topic is noteworthy because it looks beyond the revenue impact of diminishing visitor traffic – something industry players like Cloudflare are already trying to address. It also identifies other economically valuable signals lost to AI answer systems, what he refers to as "durable attention capital." This includes: subscribers, repeat readers, backlinks, bookmarks, reputation, and search authority.

Chan characterizes his argument as a more disciplined version of the AI-will-make-the-web-collapse scenario. He's not saying every website will vanish, that all AI reduces the diversity of information, or that search is doomed. Rather, he contends, "when an AI platform diverts the revenue and measurement events without replacing them, costly human information may fall below replacement."

Really, though, that is the web collapse scenario. AI answers make it uneconomical for people to produce content and their disincentive in doing so prevents the formation of quality and trust signals that add value to their work.

To restore a functioning market, Chan says, the answer shouldn't be a "visitor replacement royalty" that AI search services pay to websites or a ban on AI answers. That just props up the traditional model. Instead, he argues that the focus should move toward the new point of attention – which for some queries may be AI answers – while finding a way to distinguish between costly human information and cheap AI imitation.

He concludes, "Provenance, diversity prices, exploration credits, and informative audits are needed to restore the broader ecosystem: quantity, quality, diversity, source-level signals, and the conventional-search discovery channel that prevents self-reinforcing migration into AI answers."

That may be more difficult than it sounds. Distinguishing between AI- and human-authored content can be quite challenging. And to the extent that there's potential profit in selling low-cost AI output as premium human-authored content, expect active resistance to labeling or other mechanisms that threaten slop arbitrage.

Available Now

Get GoPeek

Preview links without opening tabs. Available on Edge and Firefox. Chrome support coming soon.

Microsoft Edge

Add to Edge — free

→

Mozilla Firefox

Add to Firefox — free

→

Google Chrome Soon

Coming to the Chrome Web Store

Demo →

Using GoPeek on GitHub

(See original article:  I bypassed AWS API Gateway auth with a trailing slash. Got $12K bounty. ) I was poking at a fintech’s mobile API and noticed something that made no sense. GET /v1/accounts returned 401. GET /v1/accounts/ returned 200 with full account data. One character. Completely different security posture. What I was looking at The API ran on AWS HTTP API — the newer, cheaper alternative to REST API. Lambda authorizer checked a JWT against Cognito, returned an IAM policy. Standard. Routes in OpenAPI: YAML /v1/accounts : get : x-amazon-apigateway-integration : uri : arn:aws:apigateway:... /v1/accounts/{accountId} : get : x-amazon-apigateway-integration : uri : arn:aws:apigateway:... The authorizer ran on every request. But HTTP API makes two decisions: does this route exist, and does the authorizer allow it? Those two layers didn’t agree on what a “match” meant. The weird results I ran ffuf on the path. The results were… inconsistent....

Read more

Former Microsoft dev built a 2.5KB Notepad clone with zero AI features

Former Microsoft dev built a 2.5KB Notepad clone with zero AI features Dave Plummer started his programmer's career at Microsoft back in the MS-DOS days. He knows a thing or two about code optimization, which is why he is now trying to strip Notepad of the unwanted AI shovelware Microsoft has been adding over the past few years. Plummer is the man who claims to have created some major Windows features, including the original Task Manager application. Now, the YouTuber and retired developer shared his latest creation: a text editor named TinyRetroPad , which is designed to mimic Notepad's text editing functionality while staying as small as possible on disk. TinyRetroPad is a Notepad-style text editor contained in roughly 2.5 kilobytes (KB). One kilobyte traditionally refers to 1,024 bytes, which means the new editor is definitely using a lot of optimization tricks to contain a usable application inside such a tiny package. Plummer forked ...

Read more

Godot bans AI-generated code contributions

Godot says bye bye AI, bans vibe-coded contributions 'We can't trust heavy users of AI to understand their code enough to fix it,' say maintainers who previously called the flood of vibe-coded pull requests 'demoralizing' Vibe coders apparently don't understand what their AI servants write - at least that's what the team behind open-source game engine Godot seems to be implying with a new policy that cracks down on AI-generated contributions. The Godot team announced on Tuesday that they were in the process of rewriting their contribution policy to prohibit almost all use of AI from contributors, citing an overwhelming number of pull requests that have poured in, many of which appear to be AI-generated. Nor, the maintainers suggested, can many heavy AI users be relied on to respond meaningfully to review feedback. "AI cannot take responsibility, and we can't trust heavy users of AI to understand th...

Read more