It's not just you, Google Search really has gotten worse

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
64,230
Reputation
9,820
Daps
174,678


Google CEO: AI development is finally slowing down—‘the low-hanging fruit is gone’​


Published Sun, Dec 8 20249:15 AM EST
Megan Sauer@meggsauer

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - DECEMBER 04: Sundar Pichai, C.E.O. of Google and Alphabet, speaks during the New York Times annual DealBook summit at Jazz at Lincoln Center on December 04, 2024 in New York City. The NYT summit with Andrew Ross Sorkin returns with interviews on the main stage including Sam Altman, co-founder and C.E.O. of OpenAI, Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post, former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, among others. T


Sundar Pichai, C.E.O. of Google and Alphabet, speaks during the New York Times annual DealBook summit at Jazz at Lincoln Center on December 04, 2024 in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images

Generative artificial intelligence probably won’t change your life in 2025 — at least, not more than it already has, according to Google CEO Sundar Pichai.

When OpenAI launched ChatGPT two years ago, generative AI quickly captured the imagination of users around the world. Now, with the industry’s competitive landscape somewhat established — multiple big tech companies, including Google, have competing models — it’ll take time for another technological breakthrough to shock the AI industry into hyper-speed development again, Pichai said at the New York Times’ DealBook Summit last week.

“I think the progress is going to get harder. When I look at [2025], the low-hanging fruit is gone,” said Pichai, adding: “The hill is steeper ... You’re definitely going to need deeper breakthroughs as we get to the next stage.”

Current language models — like ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini or Meta’s Llama — will keep getting incrementally better, particularly “at reasoning, completing a sequence of actions more reliably,” Pichai said. Those improvements could help push AI closer to generating profits for corporate users — which isn’t happening yet, despite investments in the technology that are expected to surpass $1 trillion “in coming years,” according to a recent Goldman Sachs report.

But another seismic shift that changes the way most people think about or envision AI is unlikely to happen within the next year, said Pichai.

Some tech CEOs, like Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, agree with Pichai. “Seventy years of the Industrial Revolution, there wasn’t much industry growth, and then it took off ... it’s never going to be linear,” Nadella said at the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2024 in October.

Others disagree, at least publicly. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, for example, posted “there is no wall” on social media platform X in November — a response to reports that the recently released ChatGPT-4 was only moderately better than previous models.

AI’s progress isn’t exactly walled off, Pichai said: Even incremental development will help hone the technology, making it increasingly more useful for a wider swath of people. Some industry jobs that don’t require college degrees can pay well: On average, AI trainers make more than $64,000 per year, and prompt engineers make more than $110,000, according to ZipRecruiter.
“I think 10 years from now, [computer programming] will be accessible to millions more people,” said Pichai.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
64,230
Reputation
9,820
Daps
174,678

Google Search Changes Are Killing Websites in an Age of AI Spam​


Google's major search algorithm updates this past year have left many smaller websites with no other choice than to lay off staff. The internet is worse for it.

Headshot of Imad Khan


Imad Khan Dec. 23, 2024 5:00 a.m. PT

11 min read

google-story.jpg
Tobias Schwarz/CNET

Like an ant scrambling to rebuild its home after being stepped on, a small website trying to grab Google's attention after falling off the company's search algorithm can feel helpless.

That's how Brandon Saltalamacchia, owner of handheld gaming website Retro Dodo, has been feeling since last September. That's when Google issued a major update that once again shifted the balance of how people find information online, a system that's always been somewhat precarious. The "helpful content update," as Google calls it, was meant to elevate articles written by humans for humans, weeding out AI-generated articles and spam websites.

Saltalamacchia's site is one of many smaller websites whose traffic dried up after the update, with some larger outlets seeming to be the major beneficiaries.

"Tens of thousands of independent site owners have now been put into that funnel, and we can't seem to get out of it," said Saltalamacchia when I interviewed him earlier this June. "It's been eight months now. Most of us are all out of cash."

Since the update, traffic to Retro Dodo is down 90%, according to Google Search results performance data given to CNET by Saltalamacchia. He's had to lay off his entire staff, except Editor in Chief Sebastian Santabarbara. As of October, Retro Dodo's traffic remains a fraction of what it was. Saltalamacchia is pouring in his own cash to keep Retro Dodo afloat. It doesn't help that he's recently added "dad" to his resume and is now having to juggle a diminishing financial situation and a newborn baby.

His blog post, in which he argues that Google is killing smaller sites like his, went viral among the SEO, or search engine optimization, community earlier this year and has brought him lots of attention. He's received a barrage of seemingly random tips from SEO experts.

"I don't know who to believe," said Saltalamacchia. "And this is the issue of getting these audits and listening to the SEO industry, because nobody knows what's going on."

Google currently controls over 86% of the global internet search market and, as a result, it's how content on most websites gets discovered. Unfortunately, there are bad actors always trying to elbow their way up to the top of Google Search, using underhanded tactics meant to exploit the site's signals. It leads to a constant back-and-forth between Google's search engineers, issuing updates and spam sites looking to find workarounds. The prevalence of players trying to optimize for Google Search has led to a degradation in quality results, according to a study by German researchers. This means more time spent weaving through websites trying to find good information online.

Google's market share saw a slight dip earlier this year, as TikTok and ChatGPT have exploded in popularity. In trying to remain the best place for finding information online, Google implemented generative AI features at the top of search pages that summarize the web's content in various ways. As Google tries to remedy these issues, regular, and often smaller, websites are getting caught in the crossfire.

Google says that its ranking system won't be 100% precise, but that it is committed to iteratively improving and seeks feedback. Google also contended the merits of the German study, saying that it looked at a narrow segment of product reviews and that it has since rolled out updates to address these issues. The study does point out that Google has improved and does better than competing search engines.

"We only launch changes to Search after rigorous testing to confirm that a proposed change will be helpful for real people," said Davis Thompson, communications manager for Search at Google, in a statement. "Our tests and user research have shown that our updates to Search have resulted in more satisfying and useful search results."

A gladiatorial battle that Google presides over​


Writing travel articles requires time, expertise and resources. It's a field that Nate Hake, founder and CEO of Travel Lemming, knows well. He travels the globe and has a team of local freelancers who lend their expertise to create helpful articles and listicles. Unfortunately, Travel Lemming's seen a 94% drop in search traffic earlier this year, according to traffic data that Hake shared with CNET. At the same time, Google's engineers are filling search with more AI features, and it seems they're actively making it less likely for people to click on Hake's site.

Travel Lemming


A screenshot of Travel Lemming's search traffic data.

Nate Hake

One feature of Google's search engine results pages is called From Sources Across the Web. This feature compiles information from multiple sites and tacks it at the top of a search query. Sites that focus on listicles, like top 10 things to do in Mexico City, are dealing with increasing placement and popularity of Google's SERP feature, pushing their articles further down the page.

"[Google] just completely upended the whole ecosystem," said Hake.

Google Serp 10 things to do in Mexico City


A Google SERP example of best things to do in Mexico City.

Screenshot by CNET

If dealing with Google's changes wasn't already enough of a headache, Travel Lemming's content is being usurped by spam articles on Google. This spam content is coming from seemingly legitimate websites like the Miami Herald, which Hake alleged, in a December 2023 post, took content directly from Travel Lemming.

Parasite SEO is taking over travel.

This post is AI written & clearly spun in part from our own content. Zero EEAT. Promotes adult sites.

This parasite outranks Travel Lemming’s written by locals & 100% human guides.

Is this what “helpful” means to Google @searchliaison? pic.twitter.com/vjInOnrxEQ

— Nate Hake (@natejhake) December 3, 2023

Site reputation abuse, colloquially known as "parasite SEO," is the practice of using the domain authority of more credible sites to rank certain products or sites higher in search. This involves a smaller site paying a larger site for an article with backlinks to gain a boost in Google's algorithm. It's a practice Google cracked down on last month.

According to Hake, the Miami Herald was engaging in AI-assisted plagiarism with backlinks to other products, creating an article similar to Travel Lemming's and outranking it in the process. Hake said that when he brought it to the attention of Google's Search Liaison Danny Sullivan, the Herald issued an update and articles from the Miami Herald were removed soon thereafter. Even then, those 404'd articles were still outranking Travel Lemming, much to Hake's dismay.

The Miami Herald didn't reply to multiple requests for comment.

Hake feels he isn't just battling parasite SEO, but also AI-assisted spam sites sucking up online traffic at the expense of content made by real people. One site Hake accuses of using AI is Mother Earth Travel. At first glance, it looks to be a competent website with adequate, if anodyne, writing. Oddly, all content on Mother Earth Travel is written by one person.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
64,230
Reputation
9,820
Daps
174,678
An analysis done by Copyleaks, an AI and plagiarism detection software company, at the request of CNET, found that only 12 pages on Mother Earth Travel used AI-generated content. Copyleaks' president of marketing, Eric Bogard, says it's possible that Mother Earth Travel is running its content through another software to bypass AI detection software, but wouldn't go so far as to say the site is engaging in AI-assisted plagiarism. Despite the site's strong placement in Google Search and its entire suite of articles being authored by one person, the site denies using AI. It said it has a team of writers but uses only one byline to protect their privacy.

"We, by principle and deed, are 100% 'white-hat' and don't take any short-cuts or do anything nefarious (including slinging mud at competitors)," said Shawn Shafai of Mother Earth Travel to CNET in a lengthy statement.

Hake's situation shows how difficult it is for online creators to make content when they're being squeezed by Google's search algorithm, Google's own AI summary tools and new sites that produce similar content bylined by a single person.

Spam is something Google's been fighting since its very inception, according to Thompson, and the company issued an update in March to address the latest wave of manmade and automated content abuse.

Review sites can't escape Google's algorithm​


Gisele Navarro, managing editor at HouseFresh, experienced the repercussions of Google's Product Reviews Update in late 2023. This update was meant to elevate actual human reviews of products and push down junk content. What this ended up doing was hoisting larger, more established brands and demoting sites like HouseFresh, which work hard to buy and review air quality products.

"We were 15, including full-time and contractors, and we had to immediately just reduce the number of articles that we were publishing and the number of products that we could buy because we just couldn't afford it," said Navarro.

According to Navarro's post, some sites are using their position on the internet to pump out "best lists" -- for instance, best air purifiers and best headphones of 2024 -- with little actual product testing. BuzzFeed, for example, doesn't test all products but looks at what people have said in their Amazon reviews and compiles a list. Rolling Stone follows a similar practice for some pieces.

"Because these are very big, authoritative sites in the SEO space, they get to rank really well," said Lily Ray, vice president of SEO strategy and research at Amsive, a marketing agency. Ray's been vocal about SEO abuses on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, and has highlighted sites that have abused their position. "Forbes's 'the best CBD gummies of 2024' -- they're literally going to be ranked number one above a dispensary website, right? That's what people have a lot of issue with."

Forbes has been the target of site owners and SEO experts as a publication benefiting from its ranking within Google on a wide range of topics, from CBD gummies, to air purifiers and even best pet insurance. Forbes disagrees with critics, arguing it's simply doing its journalistic duty in giving its readers content they desire.

"Forbes adheres to Google's policies, and we have not been penalized for site reputation abuse," said Laura Brusca, Forbes' chief communications officer, in a statement to CNET. "Our success and visibility reflect the substantial investment we make each year in producing high-quality, expert-written content that aligns with the topics we're covering and what our audience wants."

In all fairness, CNET too publishes a wide range of recommendation articles seemingly outside its core tech-focused brand, such as a list of the best solar panel installation companies in Houston (as well as a variety of other cities) and the best meal delivery services. CNET's product reviews and best lists generate money for the site via affiliate links, which funds our journalism. CNET employs reviewers who adhere to standards of credibility, fairness and editorial independence and follows testing procedures, often in dedicated labs, before making recommendations. Companies have no editorial control over what's published.

To battle site reputation abuse, Google pushed out a policy earlier this May and one last month. These are manual actions taken by Google in which employees will penalize sites that are abusing their position on the internet to push out low-quality content.

Although HouseFresh's traffic has gotten better, pleas from Navarro to Google haven't prompted the turnaround in traffic she was hoping for.

Google invites site owners to break bread but leaves them feeling hungry​


After more than a year of outcry from site owners and SEO experts, Google decided it needed to talk to people in person. The company organized a meeting at its offices in Mountain View, California, in late October. It invited sites like HouseFresh, Giant Freakin' Robot, Travel Lemming and others to discuss, and possibly fix, Search.

The meeting with Navarro and other creators at Google's California headquarters was confrontational. While Google was apologetic about the affects algorithmic changes had on sites, there was a level of denialism coming from its engineers, according to Navarro.

"Whatever is happening to sites like ours seems like a mystery to them," said Navarro. "They denied there was some sort of site wide classifier drowning our domains and doubled down on the fact that the algorithm works on pages and not entire domains. However, many of the creators in the room had multiple examples of their sites being clearly shadowbanned."

Shadowbanning is a term in the social media space meaning to be made invisible to other users. A shadowbanned account still exists on the platform but isn't readily visible or is pushed down by the algorithm. It's a more subtle form of banishment that doesn't outright delete an account but greatly diminishes their influence or reach. It's often used against bad actors posting negative content or engaging in abusive behavior.

Google had a more positive outlook following the meeting with creators, saying it was an opportunity for open dialogue with creators and finding ways to improve, according to Thompson.

While Navarro found the meeting in Mountain View to be a mixed bag, Joshua Tyler, founder of Cinemablend and Giant Freakin Robot, equated it to a funeral in a blog post about the event. Tyler had a more combative back-and-forth with Pandu Nayak, Google's vice president of Search, with Nayak denying that Tyler's site, or any sites in attendance, had been shadowbanned because Google's ranking comes down to the individual page level.

When site owners pushed back saying their sites were deranked simultaneously over a single night, Nayak was nonplussed, giving confused looks to anyone who disagreed.

"[Google said] without an ounce of pity or concern that there would be updates but he didn't know when they'd happen or what they'd do," according to Tyler's blog post. "Further questions on the subject were met with indifference as if he didn't understand why we cared."

Not everyone was as dejected as Tyler and Navarro. Hake from Travel Lemming was also at Google's creator summit and found the hours of conversations with Google's Search engineers as helpful. He was less enthused with Nayak's responses around AI and ultimately believes, like other creators, that it's best not to assume Google will fix things for creators.

"The Google speakers at the event reinforced that they were there to listen and hear feedback, and that they were very grateful for the ongoing dialogue with creators," Davis said in a statement when asked if Nayak would like to give a response. "The speakers made it clear that while Google can't make any guarantees to specific sites, we absolutely look to understand if and how we can do better in surfacing high quality, helpful content for people."

Tyler announced earlier this month that he'd be shutting down Giant Freakin Robot and would instead focus on the site's YouTube channel. Saltalamacchia will continue working on RetroDodo but has a new part-time gig with Kagi, a paid search engine billing itself as a private alternative to Google.

"First, they'd have had to acknowledge there was a problem, which they did not," said Tyler in an email with CNET. He went on to say that the teams within Google, like search and ads, seem siloed and are unaware about how things work in different parts of the company and had to spend time explaining YouTube analytics to some of Google's engineers. "Further, I also got a clear indication from Google that things aren't going to get any better, which was in its own way helpful."

Tyler's laid off his entire staff and is saddened by the idea that after 24 years of digital journalism, it'd be coming to an end because of Google's alleged shadowban. At the very least, Google told Tyler that there wasn't anything wrong with Giant Freakin Robot, which allowed him to stop agonizing over his own actions.

"My hope is that, despite Google telling us nothing will change, all the light shined on the situation by the attendees who were with me at the Google Creator Event may have changed their mind," said Tyler. "This core update is their chance, perhaps their last chance, to reverse course."
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
64,230
Reputation
9,820
Daps
174,678

AI search is starting to kill Google’s ‘ten blue links’​


New Adobe data reveals AI search referrals are on the rise.

by Kylie Robison

Mar 17, 2025, 6:30 PM EDT

13 Comments

A search box on top of a human brain

Illustration by Kristen Radtke / The Verge

Kylie Robison is a senior AI reporter working with The Verge’s policy and tech teams. She previously worked at Fortune Magazine and Business Insider.

After decades of relying on Google’s ten blue links to find everything from travel tips to jeans, consumers are quickly adapting to a completely new format: AI chatbots that do the searching for them.

According to new research from Adobe, AI search has become a significant traffic channel for retailers. The company analyzed “more than 1 trillion visits to U.S. retail sites” through its analytics platform, and conducted a survey of “more than 5,000 U.S. respondents” to better understand how people are using AI.

The report says AI search referrals surged 1,300 percent during the 2024 holiday season compared to 2023, with Cyber Monday seeing a 1,950 percent jump. While these are dramatic increases, it’s somewhat expected, since AI search was still in its nascency last year.

What’s more interesting is the engagement metrics: Users who are referred from AI search compared to traditional referrals (like a standard Google or Bing search) tend to stay on the site 8 percent longer, browse through different pages 12 percent more, and are 23 percent less likely to just visit the link and leave (or “bounce”). This could suggest that AI tools are directing people to more relevant pages than traditional search.

The roll out of generative AI search tools hasn’t been perfect, and it wasn’t immediately clear whether it would be a helpful tool or not. It’s been almost a year since Google launched AI Overviews (formerly dubbed the Search Generative Experience or SGE). It quickly got messy: telling users to add some glue to their pizza in order to get the cheese to stick or to eat at
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
64,230
Reputation
9,820
Daps
174,678

Google Is Burying the Web Alive​


By John Herrman, a tech columnist at Intelligencer

5:00 A.M.



3 Comments

4cb731bcff029a47aa644ab8d45643cf9f-google-search-.rsquare.w400.jpg


Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer

By now, there’s a good chance you’ve encountered Google’s AI Overviews, possibly thousands of times. Appearing as blurbs at the top of search results, they attempt to settle your queries before you scroll — to offer answers, or relevant information, gleaned from websites that you no longer need to click on. The feature was officially rolled out at Google’s developer conference last year and had been in testing for quite some time before that; on the occasion of this year’s conference, the company characterized it as “one of the most successful launches in Search in the past decade,” a strangely narrow claim that is almost certainly true: Google put AI summaries on top of everything else, for everyone, as if to say, “Before you use our main product, see if this works instead.”

This year’s conference included another change to search, this one more profound but less aggressively deployed. “AI Mode,” which has similarly been in beta testing for a while, will appear as an option for all users. It’s not like AI Overviews; that is, it’s not an extra module taking up space on a familiar search-results page but rather a complete replacement for conventional search. It’s Google’s “most powerful AI search, with more advanced reasoning and multimodality, and the ability to go deeper through follow-up questions and helpful links to the web,” the company says, “breaking down your question into subtopics and issuing a multitude of queries simultaneously on your behalf.” It’s available to everyone. It’s a lot like using AI-first chatbots that have search functions, like those from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity, and Google says it’s destined for greater things than a small tab. “As we get feedback, we’ll graduate many features and capabilities from AI Mode right into the core Search experience,” the company says.

I’ve been testing AI Mode for a few months now, and in some ways it’s less radical than it sounds and (at first) feels. It resembles the initial demos of AI search tools, including those by Google, meaning it responds to many questions with clean, ad-free answers. Sometimes it answers in extended plain language, but it also makes a lot of lists and pulls in familiar little gridded modules — especially when you ask about things you can buy — resulting in a product that, despite its chatty interface, feels an awful lot like … search.

Again, now you can try it yourself, and your mileage may vary; it hasn’t drawn me away from Google proper for a lot of thoughtless rote tasks, but it’s competitive with ChatGPT for the expanding range of searchish tasks you might attempt with a chatbot.

From the very first use, however, AI Mode crystallized something about Google’s priorities and in particular its relationship to the web from which the company has drawn, and returned, many hundreds of billions of dollars of value. AI Overviews demoted links, quite literally pushing content from the web down on the page, and summarizing its contents for digestion without clicking:

cef209a8088efbdef5132815902776df78-screentime-0521-inline1.w710.png


Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Screenshot: Google

Meanwhile, AI Mode all but buries them, not just summarizing their content for reading within Google’s product but inviting you to explore and expand on those summaries by asking more questions, rather than clicking out. In many cases, links are retained merely to provide backup and sourcing, included as footnotes and appendices rather than destinations:

1d1b8ebd9550a775fac976b410fa32c7c3-screentime-0521-inline2.w710.png


Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Screenshot: Google

This is typical with AI search tools and all but inevitable now that such things are possible. In terms of automation, this means companies like OpenAI and Google are mechanizing some of the “work” that goes into using tools like Google search, removing, when possible, the step where users leave their platforms and reducing, in theory, the time and effort it takes to navigate to somewhere else when necessary. In even broader terms — contra Google’s effort to brand this as “going beyond information to intelligence” — this is an example of how LLMs offer different ways to interact with much of the same information: summarization rather than retrieval, regeneration rather than fact-finding, and vibe-y reconstruction over deterministic reproduction.

This is interesting to think about and often compelling to use but leaves unresolved one of the first questions posed by chatbots-as-search: Where will they get all the data they need to continue to work well? When Microsoft and Google showed off their first neo-search mockups in 2023, which are pretty close to today’s AI mode, it revealed a dilemma:

Search engines still provide the de facto gateway to the broader web, and have a deeply codependent relationship with the people and companies whose content they crawl, index, and rank; a Google that instantly but sometimes unreliably summarizes the websites to which it used to send people would destroy that relationship, and probably a lot of websites, including the ones on which its models were trained.

And, well, yep! Now, both AI Overviews and AI Mode, when they aren’t occasionally hallucinating, produce relatively clean answers that benefit in contrast to increasingly degraded regular search results on Google, which are full of hyperoptimized and duplicative spamlike content designed first and foremost with the demands of Google’s ranking algorithms and advertising in mind. AI Mode feels one step further removed from that ecosystem and once again looks good in contrast, a placid textual escape from Google’s own mountain of links that look like ads and ads that look like links (of course, Google is already working on ads for both Overviews and AI Mode). In its drive to embrace AI, Google is further concealing the raw material that fuels it, demoting links as it continues to ingest them for abstraction. Google may still retain plenty of attention to monetize and perhaps keep even more of it for itself, now that it doesn’t need to send people elsewhere; in the process, however, it really is starving the web that supplies it with data on which to train and from which to draw up-to-date details. (Or, one might say, putting it out of its misery.)

Two years later, Google has become more explicit about the extent to which it’s moving on from the “you provide us results to rank, and we send you visitors to monetize” bargain, with the head of search telling The Verge, “I think the search results page was a construct.” Which is true, as far as it goes, but also a remarkable thing to hear from a company that’s communicated carefully and voluminously to website operators about small updates to its search algorithms for years.

I don’t doubt that Google has been thinking about this stuff for a while and that there are people at the company who deem it strategically irrelevant or at least of secondary importance to winning the AI race — the fate of the web might not sound terribly important when your bosses are talking nonstop about cashing out its accumulated data and expertise for AGI. I also don’t want to be precious about the web as it actually exists in 2025, nor do I suggest that websites working with or near companies like Meta and Google should have expected anything but temporary, incidental alignment with their businesses. If I had to guess, the future of Google search looks more like AI Overviews than AI mode — a jumble of widgets and modules including and united by AI-generated content, rather than a clean break — if only for purposes of sustaining Google’s multi-hundred-billion-dollar advertising business.

But I also don’t want to assume Google knows exactly how this stuff will play out for Google, much less what it will actually mean for millions of websites, and their visitors, if Google stops sending as many people beyond its results pages. Google’s push into productizing generative AI is substantially fear-driven, faith-based, and informed by the actions of competitors that are far less invested in and dependent on the vast collection of behaviors — websites full of content authentic and inauthentic, volunteer and commercial, social and antisocial, archival and up-to-date — that make up what’s left of the web and have far less to lose. Maybe, in a few years, a fresh economy will grow around the new behaviors produced by searchlike AI tools; perhaps companies like OpenAI and Google will sign a bunch more licensing deals; conceivably, this style of search automation simply collapses the marketplace supported by search, leveraging training based on years of scraped data to do more with less. In any case, the signals from Google — despite its unconvincing suggestions to the contrary — are clear: It’ll do anything to win the AI race. If that means burying the web, then so be it.
 
Top