Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) does not create original knowledge in the form of texts, images, or videos. Instead, it compiles existing bits and pieces of knowledge from numerous websites and recasts them as revenue-generating new products. As a result, instead of visiting all those websites publishing original content, seekers prefer to ask questions to knowledge aggregators-Gen AI tools such as ChatGPT. Consequentlly, original knowledge publishing websites are getting less traffic and revenue from digital advertisements and subscriptions. On the other hand, without paying any fees to original knowledge creators, ChatGPT, like Gen AI tools, generates revenue by selling compiled knowledge collected from original publishers without consent, which could be termed stealing. Therefore, knowledge creators and web publishers are being deprived of ownership, revenue, and credits.
According to a study by The Atlantic, Gen AI tools can provide a complete answer to users' queries 75 per cent of the time without the need for the user to go to websites publishing original content. Hence, knowledge seekers show less interest in asking search engine about information. For example, a survey by the University of Toronto reveals that 22 per cent of ChatGPT users "use it as an alternative to Google." It's worth noting that AdSense shares as high as 80 per cent of revenues with publishers.On the other hand, although OpenAI charges users for using ChatGPT, it pays nothing to millions of websites from where it collects knowledge. As a result, original knowledge publishing websites are suffering from decreasing visits and revenue.For example, Gartner forecasts that website traffic will fall by 25 per cent by 2026. Such forecast is underscored by Per research findings-"a quarter of all web pages developed between 2013 and 2023 no longer exist."
Such an unfolding reality appears to be a tsunami to knowledge producers and publishers.These large language model (LLM) based tools, which collect knowledge from numerous websites, are now eliminating the need for users to visit them, resulting in loss of revenue from ads and subscriptions.To make matters worse, the most popular search engine, Google, has added an AI answer option, for which Google does not share revenue with publishers. Pointing at the dark reality, The Washington Post published a headline-"Web publishers brace for carnage as Google Adds AI answers."
Let's be clear: despite claims, no Gen AI has existed without human intelligence.Today's Gen AI recasts almost 300 billion words of data, information, and knowledge collected from millions of websites. Over many decades, numerous writers and editors created, polished, and published them. Although OpenAI has placed $90 billion in value on the code and effort to collect or steal them, it is as if there has been no value in creating them in the first place. It's not only unethical, it's illegal for sucking up such a vast amount of intellectual assets. Consequentially, there have been several class action lawsuits in the USA.
As reported by Brookings, big publishers like the Associated Press, News Corp, Axel Springer, The Atlantic, and Financial Times have already reached licensing agreements with OpenAI. However, what about individual and small publishers and think tanks? How are they going to get remunerated for their intellectual assets?
Due to the shifting of reading habits from print material to web-based content, in addition to newspapers, many individual authors have opted to publish on digital platforms like Kindle, Medium, or Substack. Besides, some have created their own websites and attained publisher licences from popular search engines like Google. Besides, think tanks rely on web searches to connect with those who might benefit from the findings they have been publishing. Over the last two decades, these publishers have invested billions to create intellectual assets for generating revenue and getting recognition.To their surprise, that precious asset is being stolen, recast, and sold without even mentioning the creators' names.
It's not feasible for millions of small publishers to sue and get compensation from the backers of OpenAI or others. In addition to the loss of intellectual assets, what could be the other consequences? For sure, individual authors and publishers will lose interest in web publishing. Newspapers will suffer from further revenue loss. As a result, the human race's knowledge creation and sharing capacity will fall. Ironically, once millions of knowledge publishing websites become extinct, from whom will Gen AI collect knowledge? Due to the killing of publishers through stealing, how will Gen AI survive? On the other hand, in the absence of knowledge publishing websites, will the internet lose its importance? Most importantly, will the human race not suffer from progression due to the erosion of knowledge creation and sharing capacity?
There is no doubt that conscious human minds will resist the vicious cycle that Gen AI has triggered in knowledge space. As explained, ChatGPT, like LLM tools for mass-scale stealing of knowledge and restating them as revenue-generating products, runs the risk of disincentivising knowledge creation. As a result, economic growth will suffer due to the slow growth of knowledge and ideas. As we know, profit-making incentives from knowledge and idea generation are the underpinnings of the success of capitalism and the open market. The prosperity in the Western world progressed far better than the Soviet bloc due to the adoption of economic principles for encouraging profit-making competition out of knowledge and ideas.
For the sake of the progression of the human race, massive plundering of intellectual assets from millions of knowledge creators and publishers must stop. We must find and enforce means for offering economic incentives to all knowledge and idea producers and publishers -- large or small. Instead of going back to the dark age, we need to draw lessons from the past about the benefits that the human race has already obtained by adopting policies and legal frameworks for offering economic incentives to millions of creative minds in generating, distributing, and pursuing knowledge and ideas in driving economic prosperity through finding better means in getting jobs done.
M Rokonuzzaman, Ph.D is
academic and researcher on
technology, innovation, and policy. Zaman.rokon.bd@gmail.com
Has Generative AI triggered a vicious cycle?
M Rokonuzzaman | Published: July 01, 2024 21:19:26
Has Generative AI triggered a vicious cycle?
Share if you like