last week, a Google’s AI Overview search result used one of my WIRED articles in an unexpected way that makes me fear for the future of journalism.
It was experimenting with AI Overviews, the company’s new generative AI feature designed to answer online queries. I asked him several questions about topics I’ve covered recently, so I wasn’t surprised to see my article linked, as a footnote, at the bottom of the box containing the answer to my query. But I was taken by surprise by how much the first paragraph of an overview of AI was based directly on 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 a portion of Google’s AI overview that answered a question about using the Anthropic chatbot. Reading the two paragraphs side by side reminds me of a cheater in the classroom who copied an answer from my homework and barely bothered to change the sentence.
Reece Rogers via Google
Without AI overviews enabled, my article was often the featured snippet highlighted at the top of Google search results, offering a clear link for curious users to click when searching for advice on using the Claude chatbot. During my initial testing of the new Google search experience, the featured snippet with the article still appeared for relevant queries, but it was placed below the AI overview response that pulled from my reports and inserted aspects of it into a Bulleted list of 10 items.
In email exchanges and a phone call, a Google spokesperson acknowledged that AI-generated summaries can use portions of writing directly from web pages, but defended that AI Overviews conspicuously referenced 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 hyperlinked footnotes near the end of the result. With source links placed this low, it’s hard to imagine a publisher receiving significant traffic in this situation.
“AI overviews will conceptually match the 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 replacement for web content, but is designed to help people get an idea of what’s available and click for more information.” Looking at the word choice and overall structure of the AI overview in question, I disagree with Google’s characterization that the result may simply be a “conceptual coincidence” of my writing. It goes further. Additionally, even if Google developers did not intend for this feature to replace the original work, AI overviews provide direct answers to questions in a way that hides attribution and reduces the incentive for users to click. the source material.
“We see that links included in AI overviews get more clicks than if the page had appeared as a traditional web listing for that query,” the Google spokesperson said. No data was provided to WIRED to support this claim, making it impossible to independently verify. the impact of the AI feature on click-through rates Additionally, it’s worth noting that the company compared AI Overview referral traffic to Google’s more traditional blue link traffic, not to articles chosen for a featured snippet, where rates are likely to be much higher. higher.
While many AI lawsuits remain unresolved, one legal expert I spoke with who specializes in copyright was skeptical about whether he could win any hypothetical litigation. “I don’t think you would have a strong case for copyright infringement,” says Janet Fries, an attorney for Faegre Biddle & Reath Drinker. “Copyright law, in general, is careful not to stand in the way of useful and useful things.” His perspective focused on the type of content in this specific example of original work, explaining that it’s quite difficult to make a claim about fact-based or instructional writing, like my advice column, versus more creative work, like the poetry.
I’m definitely not the first person to suggest focusing on your target 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 where Google gets to that exact paragraph about Claude’s chatbot in its AI overview results without first referencing my work.
