Last week is one Google’s AI Overview search result used one of my WIRED articles in an unexpected way that makes me fearful for the future of journalism.
I was experimenting with AI Overviews, the company’s new generative AI feature designed to answer online questions. I asked several questions about topics I’ve covered recently, so I wasn’t shocked to see my article footnoted at the bottom of the box with the answer to my question. But I was blown away by how much the first paragraph of an AI overview pulled directly from my writing.
The following screenshot on the left is from an interview I conducted with one of Anthropic’s product developers about tips for using the company’s Claude chatbot. The screenshot on the right is part of Google’s AI overview that answered a question about using Anthropic’s chatbot. Reading the two paragraphs side by side reminds me of a cheater in class who copied an answer from my homework and barely bothered to change the wording.
Reece Rogers via Google
Without the AI summaries enabled, my article was often the featured snippet at the top of Google search results, with a clear link for curious users to click if they were looking for advice on using the Claude chatbot. In my initial testing of Google’s new search experience, the featured article snippet still appeared for relevant searches, but it was placed below the AI summary response that pulled from my reporting and inserted aspects of it into a bulleted list of ten items .
In email exchanges and a phone call, a Google spokesperson acknowledged that the AI-generated summaries can use portions of written text directly from web pages, but they defended AI summaries for conspicuously linking back to the original sources. Well, in my case, the first paragraph of the answer is not directly attributed to me. Instead, my original article was one of six footnotes hyperlinked at the bottom of the result. Because the source links are so far down, it’s hard to imagine a publisher receiving a lot of traffic in this situation.
“AI overviews will be conceptually similar to information that appears in top web results, including those linked in the overview,” a Google spokesperson wrote in a statement to WIRED. “This information is not a substitute for web content, but is intended to help people get a feel for what is out there and click for more information.” Looking at the word choice and general structure of the AI overview in question, I disagree with Google’s characterization that the result could only be a “conceptual match” with my writing. It goes on. Even though Google developers didn’t intend for this feature to replace the original work, AI summaries provide direct answers to questions in a way that hides attribution and reduces the incentive for users to click through to the source material.
“We see links in AI listings generating more clicks than if the page appeared as a traditional web listing for that search query,” the Google spokesperson said. No data supporting this claim was provided to WIRED, so it is impossible to independently verify the impact of the AI feature on click-through rates. It’s also worth noting that the company compared AI Overview’s referral traffic to more traditional blue-link traffic from Google, and not to articles chosen for a featured snippet, where the percentages are likely high. higher.
While many AI lawsuits remain unresolved, one legal expert I spoke with who specializes in copyright law was skeptical that I could win a hypothetical lawsuit. “I don’t think you have a strong argument for copyright infringement,” said Janet Fries, an attorney at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath. “Copyright generally ensures that it doesn’t get in the way of useful and useful things.” Her perspective focused on the type of content in this particular example of original work, explaining that it’s quite difficult to comment on instructional or fact-based writing, like my advice column, versus more creative work, like poetry.
I’m certainly not the first person to suggest focusing on the intended audience when writing chatbot prompts, so I agree that the fact-based aspect of my writing complicates the overall situation. However, it’s hard for me to imagine a world in which Google ends up right at that paragraph about Claude’s chatbot in the AI summary results without first referencing my work.