> The only people "losing out" here are people running SEO-spammish websites that themselves (at this point) are basically hosting LLM-generated answers for me to find.
And anybody who creates original content and wishes -- not just to be paid for that content -- but for people to actually see that content and engage with it. IOW the very people who fed the LLM revolution.
No one is using AI search to read Tammy’s original content unless it is terribly written, and no one is reading the 4 page fluff peice about the process of troubleshoot XY just to find the command that fixes their problem when they just want to solve the problem.
People who want to engage with original content will; people just won’t be forced into appearing they are engaging with content just to find answers to simple questions or find the specific information they are looking for before they leave the site…like always.
The result is likely to be more time on site with lower numbers of users; a more genuine reflection of an actual user base instead of search-fed propping of ad revenue numbers through effectively fake impressions.
To that point:
There is not a single website or blog, ever, that I started visiting regularly by having ended up there from a search result. Literally, ever. From something a friend shared? Something I saw on HN? Something I found through a recommendation, an article that was posted on a different site, etc? Absolutely.
That's ... not what original content makers who aren't named Tammy are saying, including CNN and The Verge [1], the Daily Mail [2], and several lawsuits [3] [4]. In fact, the only people who seem to believe that AI search isn't negatively affecting content makers long-term is google and you, and google (for now) has a vested interest in believing that.
Discovery isn't search, but search can be a form of discovery, despite your experiences. They don't match mine.
Your excessive hyperbole aside, I’m sure they are saying such things. Unless you forgot, they also said that about Twitter…and Facebook…and Google Search…and before that it was magazines, and BBS systems, and the internet, and Craigslist, and…and…and…
You confuse original content creators with news conglomerates that always cry wolf about how they will be “put out of businesses”. Of course, ignoring the fact that there have never been more paid content creators in history, you choose to only be concerned about the one type who complains most frequently.
It’s really nothing new, but hey, benefit of the doubt, maybe it’s your first time.
Using the term "excessive hyperbole" is itself hyperbole and is a little unrealistic for what we're talking about. What you might be referring to is the excessive number of sources I used and honestly you could take a page from that to back up what you're saying.
My original comment regarded people who create original content and want to be paid for it. That includes substack creators, CNN, and lots of enterprises in between. They all have the same problem with large LLMs either taking advantage of the tragedy of the commons or ignoring their robots.txt files and scraping their content even if they choose to not participate.
I haven't forgotten that news organizations said the same thing about Twitter, Facebook, etc. If you haven't noticed, news (especially local news) has been declining steadily for at least the last 25 years and several news organizations (again, especially local ones) _have_ either gone out of business or been bought out and gutted by hedge funds. Some of this for sure is due to miscalculations by those orgs, but the nature of those miscalculations matters. It's worth reading up on the history of media's financial relationship with social and search. It will help inform a lot on how it's going to go with LLMs and AI unless they find a way to make some deals. It behooves both sides.
And anybody who creates original content and wishes -- not just to be paid for that content -- but for people to actually see that content and engage with it. IOW the very people who fed the LLM revolution.