Alvise C.We ask an artificial intelligence a question, read the answer, and close the page. It’s convenient, but we often don’t visit the sites the information comes from.
write articles, publish guides, or conduct research, those visits help support their work. If they decline, producing new content can become more difficult. And that raises a question: where will AI get its information if original sources have fewer and fewer resources?
The risk of a vicious circle
In my latest article on Substack, I discuss doom loop, a possible vicious circle involving automated answers, loss of traffic, and an increase in AI-generated content.
The risk is that we end up with lots of pages repeating the same information, but fewer people working to verify it, update it, or discover new information. If an error is repeated often enough, its widespread circulation can make it seem credible.
This doesn’t mean artificial intelligence is inevitably destined to get worse. But it does mean that the quality of sources matters, even when an answer is immediate and well written.
Who supports the work behind an answer?
The issue also concerns recognition for the work of publishers, authors, and researchers. If their content feeds AI services, how can they continue to fund the production of original information?
In the full article, I explore the phenomenon of zero-click searches, controversies over the use of content, and proposals for compensating the people who produce it.
Want to read the full article?
The full version of the article, with insights, interesting facts, and reflections on the world of Microsoft and technology, is available on Substack.
Read the full article on Substack
You can also subscribe for free to receive future articles directly by email.
