Google, Generative Search, And The Web’s Uncertain Future
Digging through a bunch of websites to find information is annoying, but we’re in trouble if the primary sources go away.
The demo was beautiful. At Google’s IO developer conference this week, the company showed an experimental version of its search engine handling an almost unimaginably difficult query. Asked whether a family with kids under three years old and a dog would prefer Arches National Park or Bryce Canyon, Google scoured the internet and returned a lengthy, detailed answer. It noted that only Byrce had paths that allowed dogs, that kids might love the rock formations at Arches, and that Arches still had plenty of dog-friendly campgrounds, pullouts, and roads.
“Now, search does the heavy lifting for you,” said Google Search VP Cathy Edwards. Behind her, an AI-generated search response took up the full browser window.
This new search product is undeniably appealing, but it’ll likely come at a cost. When people search with Google today, they visit a bunch of websites, gather information, and synthesize it. The process is a bit of a pain, but the websites they visit depend on them to survive. By doing the ‘heavy lifting’ itself, Google could leave these primary sources out of the equation, diminishing their cause to remain standalone entities — or even exist at all.
Now, an already shaky digital publishing business will prepare for the fallout. For the 2,500+ digital publishers that Parsely covers, the analytics provider found that 29% of their traffic came from search last year. And now that social platforms like Facebook and Twitter are moving away from timely news content, a decline in visitors from search engines could cause serious damage.
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, told me that search, while not without some pain and friction, has been a more stable source of traffic and partnerships for publishers than other tech platforms. “The prospect of [search engines] following social media in featuring far fewer links must be daunting,” he said, “especially for those publishers who do not have a strong, direct relationship with a loyal, returning audience.”
In some ways, digital publishers brought this moment on themselves. They created content farms and published undifferentiated stories — What Time Is The Super Bowl? — just hoping to attract some Google visits. Websites became impossible to navigate. They buried recipes, wrote for amorphous audiences they didn’t care about, and lost sight of their relationships with readers. Eventually, they let search engines dictate their product, instead of making sense of it. And search engines went with it.
When ChatGPT arrived, it started delivering on Google’s mission — “organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful” — better, at times, than Google itself. It reshaped the information on websites instead of simply sending people there. And people loved it, making it the fastest-growing consumer application ever. After OpenAI and Microsoft threatened Google’s position with their generative AI experiences, the company had to respond. And it did so in force this week. Its AI-powered ‘Search Generative Experience’ is still in a ‘labs’ preview, but it’s almost certainly its future.
For publishers looking to adjust, the likely answer is their search traffic will diminish. Google and Bing do include links to their websites in their generative AI products, but those links are no longer as crucial to click. Publishers that minimize their reliance on search traffic will be better off in the long run. Email, podcasts, and other subscription media seem poised to come out best. (This is a key strategic bet for Big Technology.) Ironically, the fears that ChatGPT would flood the web with crap websites seeking search traffic are likely a bit overblown since generative search would kill their business models anyway.
As for the search engines, their generative products should work exceptionally well as long as there’s content on the web to draw from. Google’s demo relied on content from the National Park Service, a tour guide website, and likely other sources across the web. It needs this content to work. And without ensuring that web publishers stay solvent — either by sending readers or some other means — it’ll have less information to draw from as its AI generates responses. Absent its primary sources, the beautiful demo, however great a user experience, might become a hollow shell.
We're not mad at coffee, just disappointed. (sponsored)
MUD\WTR is a coffee alternative with functional mushrooms and ayurvedic herbs. With 1/7th the caffeine as a cup of coffee, you get sustained energy and focus without the jitters or 2 p.m. crash of coffee.
Your morning routine sets the tone for your entire day and MUD\WTR supports a healthy mind, through healthy habits.
With cacao and masala chai, you get the habit of coffee and functional mushrooms like the natural nootropic lion’s mane to promote focus throughout the day.
Whether you prefer it hot or iced, with cream or without, you can brew it the same as your coffee. And for an extra boost, try our MCT oil coconut creamer.
Enter code BIGTECH at checkout for a limited time 15% discount and a free frother at mudwtr.com/bigtech
What Else I’m Reading, Etc.
The streaming wars are over [CNBC]
Robinhood’s crypto revenue dropped 30% in Q1 [CoinDesk]
A critical look at Andreessen Horowitz’s latest crypto report [Molly White]
Microsoft inks a deal for fusion energy… to be delivered in 2028 [WSJ]
Q&A with Musk biographer Ashlee Vance about the ‘state of Elon’ and his new book [Big Technology]
Prince Harry’s Ghostwriter opens up about his experience [New Yorker]
See a story you like? Tweet it with “tip @bigtechnology” for consideration in this section.
Number Of The Week
Miami’s startups this year have raised approximately a quarter of the funding they raised in Q1 last year, leading its mayor to instruct staff to cold call top VCs.
Quote Of The Week
What’s the end goal we are aiming for? Ultimately, do we just skip the vacation altogether and generate some pretty, pretty pictures? Can we supplant our memories with sunnier, more idealized versions of the past? Are we making reality better? Is everything more beautiful? Is everything better? Is this all very, very cool? Or something else? Something we haven’t realized yet?
MIT Technology Review editor-in-chief Mat Honan’s final thought on all the AI announcements at Google IO this week
Advertise with Big Technology?
Advertising with Big Technology gets your product, service, or cause in front of the tech world’s top decision-makers. To reach 130,000+ plugged-in tech insiders, reply to this email or write email@example.com
This Week On Big Technology Podcast: Modern Space Race + State of Elon Musk — With Ashlee Vance
Ashlee Vance is the author of When The Heavens Went On Sale, a new book about the modern-day space race. Join us for a conversation about the commercial ventures fighting for their place in low earth orbit, and why governments have ceded the space to the private sector. We'll discuss SpaceX, Planet, Rocket Lab, Astra, and Firefly Aerospace. Stay tuned of for the final 20 minutes, where Vance discusses his relationship with Elon Musk and the state of the billionaire entrepreneur.
You can listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Thanks again for reading. Please share Big Technology if you like it!
And hit that Like Button while the web’s still here!
My book Always Day One digs into the tech giants’ inner workings, focusing on automation and culture. I’d be thrilled if you’d give it a read. You can find it here.
Questions? Email me by responding to this email, or by writing firstname.lastname@example.org
News tips? Find me on Signal at 516-695-8680
Apart from primary source detachment, the other vital issue to address is how "organising the world's information" is being conducted through a myopic American cultural lens. This is, in effect, rewriting and filtering the information made available in 'bot conversations. Even now, for example, Bing Chat refuses to discuss, or prefers to ameliorate terms and cultural aspects which have been deemed not suitable for discussion (by lawyers, ethics panels, who knows?), even if these issues might play a major part in the United States or another country's history or current affairs. Orwell/Blair was right, but he might be surprised how content we are to sit back and watch this happen.
This is likely a dumb question, so forgive me in advance.
But let’s say Google/Microsoft recognizes the value of the source information. Would they ever consider sharing revenue with the sources of info used in their response to users?
I guess that would mean the user would have to pay for the chat function, but maybe that’s possible if it really does save folks time?