SEO

Google Policy Agenda Reveals AI Regulation Wishlist

Published

12 months ago

May 22, 2023

Google Policy Agenda Reveals AI Regulation Wishlist

Google published an AI Policy Agenda paper that outlines a vision for responsible deployment of AI and suggestions for how governments should regulate and encourage the industry.

Google AI Policy Agenda

Google announced the publication of an AI policy agenda with suggestions for responsible AI development and regulations.

The paper notes that government AI policies are independently forming around the world and calls for a cohesive AI agenda that strikes a balance between protecting against harmful outcomes while getting out of the way of innovation.

Google writes:

“Getting AI innovation right requires a policy framework that ensures accountability and enables trust.

We need a holistic AI strategy focused on:

(1) unlocking opportunity through innovation and inclusive economic growth;

(2) ensuring responsibility and enabling trust; and

(3) protecting global security.

A cohesive AI agenda needs to advance all three goals — not any one at the expense of the others.”

Google’s AI policy agenda has three core objectives:

Opportunity
Responsibility
Security

Opportunity

This part of the agenda asks governments to be encouraging of the development of AI by investing in:

Research and development
Creating a friction-less legal environment that unfetters the development of AI
Planning the educational support for training an AI-ready workforce

In short, the agenda is asking governments to get out of the way and get behind AI to help advance technology.

The policy agenda observes:

“Countries have historically excelled when they maximize access to technology and leverage it to accomplish major public objectives, rather than trying to limit technological advancement.”

Responsibility

Google’s policy agenda argues that responsible deployment of AI will depend on a mixture of government laws, corporate self-regulation and input from non-governmental organizations.

The policy agenda recommends:

“Some challenges can be addressed through regulation, ensuring that AI technologies are developed and deployed in line with responsible industry practices and international standards.

Others will require fundamental research to better understand AI’s benefits and risks, and how to manage them, and developing and deploying new technical innovations in areas like interpretability and watermarking.

And others may require new organizations and institutions.”

The agenda also recommends:

“Encourage adoption of common approaches to AI regulation and governance, as well as a common lexicon, based on the work of the OECD. “

What is OECD?

The OECD is the OECD.AI Policy Observatory, which is supported by corporate and government partners.

The OECD government stakeholders include the US State Department and the US Commerce Department.

The corporate stakeholders are comprised of organizations like the Patrick J McGovern Foundation, whose leadership team is stacked with Silicon Valley investors and technology executives who have a self-interest in how technology is regulated.

Google Advocates Less Corporate Regulation

Google’s policy recommendation on regulation is that less regulation is better and that corporate transparency could hinder innovation.

It recommends:

“Focusing regulations on the highest-risk applications can also deter innovation in the highest-value applications where AI can offer the most significant benefits.

Transparency, which can support accountability and equity, can come at a cost in accuracy, security, and privacy.

Democracies need to carefully assess how to strike the right balances.”

Then later it recommends taking efficiency and productivity into consideration:

“Require regulatory agencies to consider trade-offs between different policy objectives, including efficiency and productivity enhancement, transparency, fairness, privacy, security, and resilience. “

There has always been, and will always be, a tug of war between corporate entities struggling against oversight and government regulators seeking to protect the public.

AI can solve humanities toughest problems and provide unprecedented benefits. Google is right that a balance should be found between the interests of the public and corporations.

Sensible Recommendations

The document contains sensible recommendations, such as suggesting that existing regulatory agencies develop guidelines specific to AI and to consider adopting the new ISO standards currently under development (such as ISO 42001).

The policy agenda recommends:

“a) Direct sectoral regulators to update existing oversight and enforcement regimes to apply to AI systems, including on how existing authorities apply to the use of AI, and how to demonstrate compliance of an AI system with existing regulations using international consensus multistakeholder standards like the ISO 42001 series.

b) Instruct regulatory agencies to issue regular reports identifying capacity gaps that make it difficult both for covered entities to comply with regulations and for regulators to conduct effective oversight.”

In a way, those recommendations are stating the obvious, it’s a given that agencies will develop guidelines so that regulators know how to regulate.

Tucked away in that statement is the recommendation of the ISO 42001 as a model of what AI standards should look like.

It should be noted that the ISO 42001 standard is developed by the ISO/IEC committee for Artificial Intelligence, which is chaired by a twenty year Silicon Valley technology executive and others from the technology industry.

AI and Security

This is the part that presents are real danger from the malicious use to create disinformation and misinformation as well as cyber-based harms.

Google outlines challenges:

“Our challenge is to maximize the potential benefits of AI for global security and stability while preventing threat actors from exploiting this technology for malicious purposes.”

And then offers a solution:

“Governments must simultaneously invest in R&D and accelerate public and private AI adoption while controlling the proliferation of tools that could be abused by malicious actors.”

Among the recommendations for governments to combat AI-based threats:

Develop ways to identify and prevent election interference
Share information about security vulnerabilities
Develop an international trade control framework for dealing with entities engaging in research and development of AI that threatens global security.

Reduce Bureaucracy and Increase Government Adoption of AI

The paper next advocates streamlining government adoption of AI, including more investment in it.

“Reform government acquisition policies to take advantage of and foster world-leading AI…

Examine institutional and bureaucratic barriers that prevent governments from breaking down data silos and adopt best-in-class data governance to harness the full power of AI.

Capitalize on data insights through human-machine teaming, building nimble teams with the skills to quickly build/adapt/leverage AI systems which no longer require computer science degrees…”

Google’s AI Policy Agenda

The policy agenda provides thoughtful suggestions for governments around the world to consider when formulating regulations surrounding the use of AI.

AI is capable of many positive breakthroughs in science and medicine, breakthroughs that can provide solutions to climate change, cure diseases and extend human life.

In a way it’s a shame that the first AI products released to the world are the comparatively trivial ChatGPT and Dall-E applications that do very little to benefit humanity.

Governments are trying to understand AI and how to regulate it as these technologies are adopted around the world.

Curiously, open source AI, the most consequential version of it, is mentioned only once.

The only context in which open source is addressed is in recommendations for dealing with misuse of AI:

“Clarify potential liability for misuse/abuse of both general-purpose and specialized AI systems (including open-source systems, as appropriate) by various participants — researchers and authors, creators, implementers, and end users.”

Given how Google is said to be frightened and believes it is already defeated by open source AI, it is curious how open source AI is only mentioned in the context of misuse of the technology.

Google’s AI Policy Agenda reflects legitimate concerns for over-regulation and inconsistent rules imposed around the world.

But the the organizations the policy agenda cites as helping develop industry standards and regulations are stacked with Silicon valley insiders. This raises questions about whose interests the standards and regulations reflect.

The policy agenda successfully communicates the the need and the urgency for developing meaningful and fair regulations to prevent harmful outcomes while allowing beneficial innovation to move forward.

Read Google’s article about the policy agenda:

A policy agenda for responsible AI progress: Opportunity, Responsibility, Security

Read the AI policy agenda itself (PDF)

A Policy Agenda for Responsible Progress in Artificial Intelligence

Featured image by Shutterstock/Shaheerrr

Source link

Related Topics:agenda Google Policy regulation Reveals seo Wishlist

Up Next

A Step-By-Step Guide To Creating Segments And Audiences In GA4 With Examples

Don't Miss

The Rise, Fall, & Future

SEO

Google Rolls Out New ‘Web’ Filter For Search Results

Published

4 hours ago

May 15, 2024

Max

Google is introducing a filter that allows you to view only text-based webpages in search results.

The “Web” filter, rolling out globally over the next two days, addresses demand from searchers who prefer a stripped-down, simplified view of search results.

Danny Sullivan, Google’s Search Liaison, states in an announcement:

“We’ve added this after hearing from some that there are times when they’d prefer to just see links to web pages in their search results, such as if they’re looking for longer-form text documents, using a device with limited internet access, or those who just prefer text-based results shown separately from search features.”

We’ve added this after hearing from some that there are times when they’d prefer to just see links to web pages in their search results, such as if they’re looking for longer-form text documents, using a device with limited internet access, or those who just prefer text-based…

— Google SearchLiaison (@searchliaison) May 14, 2024

The new functionality is a throwback to when search results were more straightforward. Now, they often combine rich media like images, videos, and shopping ads alongside the traditional list of web links.

How It Works

On mobile devices, the “Web” filter will be displayed alongside other filter options like “Images” and “News.”

Screenshot from: twitter.com/GoogleSearchLiaison, May 2024.

If Google’s systems don’t automatically surface it based on the search query, desktop users may need to select “More” to access it.

1715727362 7 Google Rolls Out New Web Filter For Search Results

Screenshot from: twitter.com/GoogleSearchLiaison, May 2024.

More About Google Search Filters

Google’s search filters allow you to narrow results by type. The options displayed are dynamically generated based on your search query and what Google’s systems determine could be most relevant.

The “All Filters” option provides access to filters that are not shown automatically.

Alongside filters, Google also displays “Topics” – suggested related terms that can further refine or expand a user’s original query into new areas of exploration.

For more about Google’s search filters, see its official help page.

Featured Image: egaranugrah/Shutterstock

Source link

SEO

Why Google Can’t Tell You About Every Ranking Drop

Published

24 hours ago

May 14, 2024

Max

Why Google Can't Tell You About Every Ranking Drop

In a recent Twitter exchange, Google’s Search Liaison, Danny Sullivan, provided insight into how the search engine handles algorithmic spam actions and ranking drops.

The discussion was sparked by a website owner’s complaint about a significant traffic loss and the inability to request a manual review.

Sullivan clarified that a site could be affected by an algorithmic spam action or simply not ranking well due to other factors.

He emphasized that many sites experiencing ranking drops mistakenly attribute it to an algorithmic spam action when that may not be the case.

“I’ve looked at many sites where people have complained about losing rankings and decide they have a algorithmic spam action against them, but they don’t. “

Sullivan’s full statement will help you understand Google’s transparency challenges.

Additionally, he explains why the desire for manual review to override automated rankings may be misguided.

Two different things. A site could have an algorithmic spam action. A site could be not ranking well because other systems that *are not about spam* just don’t see it as helpful.

I’ve looked at many sites where people have complained about losing rankings and decide they have a…

— Google SearchLiaison (@searchliaison) May 13, 2024

Challenges In Transparency & Manual Intervention

Sullivan acknowledged the idea of providing more transparency in Search Console, potentially notifying site owners of algorithmic actions similar to manual actions.

However, he highlighted two key challenges:

Revealing algorithmic spam indicators could allow bad actors to game the system.
Algorithmic actions are not site-specific and cannot be manually lifted.

Sullivan expressed sympathy for the frustration of not knowing the cause of a traffic drop and the inability to communicate with someone about it.

However, he cautioned against the desire for a manual intervention to override the automated systems’ rankings.

Sullivan states:

“…you don’t really want to think “Oh, I just wish I had a manual action, that would be so much easier.” You really don’t want your individual site coming the attention of our spam analysts. First, it’s not like manual actions are somehow instantly processed. Second, it’s just something we know about a site going forward, especially if it says it has change but hasn’t really.”

Determining Content Helpfulness & Reliability

Moving beyond spam, Sullivan discussed various systems that assess the helpfulness, usefulness, and reliability of individual content and sites.

He acknowledged that these systems are imperfect and some high-quality sites may not be recognized as well as they should be.

“Some of them ranking really well. But they’ve moved down a bit in small positions enough that the traffic drop is notable. They assume they have fundamental issues but don’t, really — which is why we added a whole section about this to our debugging traffic drops page.”

Sullivan revealed ongoing discussions about providing more indicators in Search Console to help creators understand their content’s performance.

“Another thing I’ve been discussing, and I’m not alone in this, is could we do more in Search Console to show some of these indicators. This is all challenging similar to all the stuff I said about spam, about how not wanting to let the systems get gamed, and also how there’s then no button we would push that’s like “actually more useful than our automated systems think — rank it better!” But maybe there’s a way we can find to share more, in a way that helps everyone and coupled with better guidance, would help creators.”

Advocacy For Small Publishers & Positive Progress

In response to a suggestion from Brandon Saltalamacchia, founder of RetroDodo, about manually reviewing “good” sites and providing guidance, Sullivan shared his thoughts on potential solutions.

He mentioned exploring ideas such as self-declaration through structured data for small publishers and learning from that information to make positive changes.

“I have some thoughts I’ve been exploring and proposing on what we might do with small publishers and self-declaring with structured data and how we might learn from that and use that in various ways. Which is getting way ahead of myself and the usual no promises but yes, I think and hope for ways to move ahead more positively.”

Sullivan said he can’t make promises or implement changes overnight, but he expressed hope for finding ways to move forward positively.

Featured Image: Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock

Source link

SEO

56 Google Search Statistics to Bookmark for 2024

Published

1 day ago

May 13, 2024

Entireweb News Bot

56 Google Search Statistics to Bookmark for 2024

If you’re curious about the state of Google search in 2024, look no further.

Each year we pick, vet, and categorize a list of up-to-date statistics to give you insights from trusted sources on Google search trends.

Google has a web index of “about 400 billion documents”. (The Capitol Forum)
Google’s search index is over 100 million gigabytes in size. (Google)
There are an estimated 3.5 billion searches on Google each day. (Internet Live Stats)
61.5% of desktop searches and 34.4% of mobile searches result in no clicks. (SparkToro)
15% of all Google searches have never been searched before. (Google)
94.74% of keywords get 10 monthly searches or fewer. (Ahrefs)
The most searched keyword in the US and globally is “YouTube,” and youtube.com gets the most traffic from Google. (Ahrefs)
96.55% of all pages get zero search traffic from Google. (Ahrefs)
50-65% of all number-one spots are dominated by featured snippets. (Authority Hacker)
Reddit is the most popular domain for product review queries. (Detailed)

Google is the most used search engine in the world, with a mobile market share of 95.32% and a desktop market share of 81.95%. (Statista)
Google.com generated 84.2 billion visits a month in 2023. (Statista)
Google generated $307.4 billion in revenue in 2023. (Alphabet Investor Relations)
63.41% of all US web traffic referrals come from Google. (SparkToro)
92.96% of global traffic comes from Google Search, Google Images, and Google Maps. (SparkToro)
Only 49% of Gen Z women use Google as their search engine. The rest use TikTok. (Search Engine Land)

58.67% of all website traffic worldwide comes from mobile phones. (Statista)
57% of local search queries are submitted using a mobile device or tablet. (ReviewTrackers)
51% of smartphone users have discovered a new company or product when conducting a search on their smartphones. (Think With Google)
54% of smartphone users search for business hours, and 53% search for directions to local stores. (Think With Google)
18% of local searches on smartphones lead to a purchase within a day vs. 7% of non-local searches. (Think With Google)
56% of in-store shoppers used their smartphones to shop or research items while they were in-store. (Think With Google)
60% of smartphone users have contacted a business directly using the search results (e.g., “click to call” option). (Think With Google)
63.6% of consumers say they are likely to check reviews on Google before visiting a business location. (ReviewTrackers)
88% of consumers would use a business that replies to all of its reviews. (BrightLocal)
Customers are 2.7 times more likely to consider a business reputable if they find a complete Business Profile on Google Search and Maps. (Google)
Customers are 70% more likely to visit and 50% more likely to consider purchasing from businesses with a complete Business Profile. (Google)
76% of people who search on their smartphones for something nearby visit a business within a day. (Think With Google)
28% of searches for something nearby result in a purchase. (Think With Google)
Mobile searches for “store open near me” (such as, “grocery store open near me” have grown by over 250% in the last two years. (Think With Google)

People use Google Lens for 12 billion visual searches a month. (Google)
50% of online shoppers say images helped them decide what to buy. (Think With Google)
There are an estimated 136 billion indexed images on Google Image Search. (Photutorial)
15.8% of Google SERPs show images. (Moz)
People click on 3D images almost 50% more than static ones. (Google)

More than 800 million people use Google Discover monthly to stay updated on their interests. (Google)
46% of Google Discover URLs are news sites, 44% e-commerce, 7% entertainment, and 2% travel. (Search Engine Journal)
Even though news sites accounted for under 50% of Google Discover URLs, they received 99% of Discover clicks. (Search Engine Journal)
Most Google Discover URLs only receive traffic for three to four days, with most of that traffic occurring one to two days after publishing. (Search Engine Journal)
The clickthrough rate (CTR) for Google Discover is 11%. (Search Engine Journal)

91.45% of search volumes in Google Ads Keyword Planner are overestimates. (Ahrefs)
For every $1 a business spends on Google Ads, they receive $8 in profit through Google Search and Ads. (Google)
Google removed 5.5 billion ads, suspended 12.7 million advertiser accounts, restricted over 6.9 billion ads, and restricted ads from showing up on 2.1 billion publisher pages in 2023. (Google)
The average shopping click-through rate (CTR) across all industries is 0.86% for Google Ads. (Wordstream)
The average shopping cost per click (CPC) across all industries is $0.66 for Google Ads. (Wordstream)
The average shopping conversion rate (CVR) across all industries is 1.91% for Google Ads. (Wordstream)

58% of consumers ages 25-34 use voice search daily. (UpCity)
16% of people use voice search for local “near me” searches. (UpCity)
67% of consumers say they’re very likely to use voice search when seeking information. (UpCity)
Active users of the Google Assistant grew 4X over the past year, as of 2019. (Think With Google)
Google Assistant hit 1 billion app installs. (Android Police)

AI-generated answers from SGE were available for 91% of entertainment queries but only 17% of healthcare queries. (Statista)
The AI-generated answers in Google’s Search Generative Experience (SGE) do not match any links from the top 10 Google organic search results 93.8% of the time. (Search Engine Journal)
Google displays a Search Generative element for 86.8% of all search queries. (Authoritas)
62% of generative links came from sources outside the top 10 ranking organic domains. Only 20.1% of generative URLs directly match an organic URL ranking on page one. (Authoritas)
70% of SEOs said that they were worried about the impact of SGE on organic search (Aira)