What does the Google antitrust ruling mean for the future of AI? : NPR

This photo, in New York, taken on September 11, 2023, displays various Google logos when they are wanted on Google.

Richard Drew / AP

hide

tilting legend

Richard Drew / AP

When the government has launched an antitrust pursuit against Google Five years agoIt was a question of knowing whether the technology giant had a monopoly on research on the Internet. But when the judge ruled on the company’s sanctions this month, the future of artificial intelligence was at the front and center.

The judge of the Federal District Court Amit Mehta tried to spin a needle with His last decisionRapping Google for its grip on research without hiding its ability to compete in the new field of generative artificial intelligence as chatbots increase in importance.

Mehta recognized the challenge, writing: “The court is invited to look in a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a void of a judge.”

Some analysts fear that they did not have done enough to put Google in check, because the vast draft data that its collection engine collects gives the company a huge advantage in terms of AI development. They also say that the case highlights the limits of the judiciary with regard to the development of the policy for rapidly moving technologies.

The Ministry of Justice had sought -after rigorous penaltiesIncluding Google’s divestment of its Chrome browser, a jewel of the corporate crown and a ban Exclusive offers The company has done with Google devices manufacturers to be their default search engine.

But Google can keep Chrome and financial offers to make Google the main search engine can occur – but not exclusive. The company will also have to share some of its precious research data with competitors, although these details have not yet been nailed.

“I think that when you look at the package of remedies all together, they ring Hollow,” said Alissa Cooper, expert in Internet politics and executive director of Knight-Georgetown Institute, a group for thinking about technological policy. “It does not really offer very important interventions of all kinds.”

Chatbots, like Google Gemini and its rivals, Chatgpt, Claude and Perplexity, are now biting the heels of traditional researchBecause people are using them more and more to answer questions instead of typing queries in search engines like Google.

Cooper says that the judge seemed to see AI as a completely new battlefield which will have his own set of winners and losers. And that is why he has not established strict punishment that would prevent Google from transforming its forces into research into AI forces.

She said he seems to believe “we must believe that the competition that emerges from these new players will take care of the problem that led to this case in the first place”.

Like a parole agent?

Even with the steps that the judge has taken to try to slow down Google’s domination over internet research, Tim Wu, technology advisor to the Biden administration and professor at the law faculty of Columbia University, says it is not clear if this antitrust case will prevent Google from launching its weight to dominate the AI.

“The question is, as far as I’m concerned, can Google use the same techniques it had used and dominate research – old research – for AI?” He said.

The decision of judge Mehta from preventing Google from concluding exclusive distribution agreements has been formulated in a way that it applies to AI chatbots, sometimes called “response engines”, also. He also awarded a technical committee to supervise the company in the coming years and apparently ensure that it respects the rules. Wu said it is not clear what impact this panel will have.

“Is it like a parole agent that Google must check with each, you know, month or two? Or is the court made with it?” He said.

Be that as it may, he and others argue that the government should do more to regulate technological policy than simply deposit business.

Tom Wheeler, former president of the Federal Communications Commission, agrees. He said this case shows that the courts cannot follow technology, especially in a case based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Actwhich has more than a century.

“You must feel Judge Mehta because he was trying to apply a law written in 1890 to what is happening today in artificial intelligence,” he said.

Wheeler claims that antitrust cases are insufficient to regulate a rapidly evolving market such as AI. He notes that competitiveness in the AI ​​race will be fueled by data, scope, calculation power and money. “The reality is that Google controls all these elements,” said Wheeler.

In court this springGoogle lawyers argued that as regards AI, the company is not the best dog. The pacesetter is the Openai Chatppt. Google’s Gemini chatbot is a competitor, and Google gives brief responses to certain research requests.

Google refused to comment on this story, but said that it is likely to appeal to the penalties and the underlying verdict of Mehta that he has a monopoly on research.

“This case will ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court, probably within 2027, 2028, which is seven or eight years after its deposit – and a millennium in terms of innovation and development,” said Wheeler.

Note: Google is an NPR financial supporter.