Welllllll this isn't great.

[lp0_on_fire@social.linux.pizza]

@SteveRudolfi, ugh. Also, whoever wrote that doesn't know that “maybe” is not “may be”)…

[ivolimmen@toot.community]

@SteveRudolfi so... basically a patented version of a scam site???

[chemicaleyeguy@mstdn.science]

@SteveRudolfi #AI is #clankers all the way down.

#Resist #clankers , #wankers and their #AIslop.

[robinadams@mathstodon.xyz]

@petealexharris @ErikvanStraten @grammasaurus @SteveRudolfi The idea is not that they redirect requests to your URL. They want to show a link in their search results to a page dynamically generated by AI, above (or maybe: instead of) the link to your URL.

[ulrich@social.server17.net]

@SteveRudolfi

That is wrong for so many different reasons that you could fill an entire conference with talks on the subject. Even then, there would surely still be more to say.

[stonedonkey@mastodon.social]

@SteveRudolfi I'm good with starting over, when the web was just research, people who were passionate about a topic and maybe maybe a few webrings.

No ads, no single search engine, no dark patterns, just people who loved building for others and wanted to make the place better.

[naturemc@mastodon.online]

@grammasaurus At least in the EU much of this could be against the law. (The question is whether anyone would report it.)

@SteveRudolfi

[tansy@wandering.shop]

@SteveRudolfi how is anyone supposed to be a journalist if google is going to rewrite articles to make them more 'palatable' for readers?

[naturemc@mastodon.online]

@netzhexe That doesn't stop the umpty AI scam websites being out there and making real websites more and more invisible.

@SteveRudolfi

[shelldozer@oldbytes.space]

@SteveRudolfi 'The leap from "the link can appear in a sponsored content item" to "you could be billed for clicks to a page you didn’t create" seems like a radical shift in the way the internet works'

[angusm@mastodon.social]

@SteveRudolfi @pluralistic Google puts on its Crocodile Dundee hat and drawls "THAT's not #enshittification. THIS is enshittification!”

[gergely@gotosocial.polonkai.eu]

@SteveRudolfi The article mentions WebMCP which, to my understanding, will play a significant role in this AI-generated crap. I wonder if there are people out there who have already exploited it so the AI sees something completely different than what’s on the actual page…

[firlefanz@writing.exchange]

@SteveRudolfi

Well, eff Google, a hundred times.

I hope there will be plug-ins that block this nonsense. I hope WordPress will block this nonsense.

I'm running my Website to express myself, not to create parts for some some AI slop. I will never adapt it to fit Google's slop, either.

Websites are by humans for humans.

Google has gone completely off the rails, they are aiding a fascist government, and want to alter history and facts in real time.

Utterly disgusting!

[naturemc@mastodon.online]

@tansy Good question.
We have laws (copyright, personality rights etc., Digital Service Act in the EU) and they can't use a patent against laws.
But that will lead to a wave of lawsuits, because they’ll carry on doing what they want anyway. And small freelancers will be less able to protect themselves than major publishers.

Some book publishers are testing #noAI labels. But they can also be misused. Times of disruption.

@SteveRudolfi

[matt@oslo.town]

@SteveRudolfi @leneeeide I think that was the whole premise of Arc browser for iOS:

"Browse for Me would use AI to read webpages related to the user's query to create a new webpage containing quotes, summaries, and embedded videos regarding the query."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(web_browser)#:~:text=The%20announcement%20also,regarding%20the%20query.