It’s wild how often a Google summary asserts something, I click through to the cited Wikipedia link, and the article says the exact opposite.
I’m very much an AI optimist these days, but product decisions (like elevating weaker models to the top of search results) are making the world epistemically worse right now.
virtue signaling and identity politics
increadably questionable financial expenditure
and now AI
are blighting what should be the crowning achivement of human knowledge
mewpmewp2•4h ago
However if something is used as a source by natural text search, perhaps it would at least be fair to mark some sort of hit to that in other ways where deals would be made for rewarding that.
The ideal and fairest to me seems that there must be some sort of taxation/royalty type percentage coming through for what is verified as high quality content. E.g. Google needs to mark down what content and how much it used for training and content that is used as source and keep aggregated statistics, pay out a certain percentage from the profits or percentage of costs that it takes to generate tokens if no profits.
Maybe there are better ideas, these are just few top of mind. Since generating tokens is costly, adding 10 percent on top of it, doesn't seem that significant and could be used to reward the content creators proportionally.