Connect with us

Business

Google antitrust order would benefit AI rivals like OpenAI, Meta and Perplexity

Published

on



Many of Google’s AI rivals will have been disappointed to see the tech giant escape largely unscathed from its first major antitrust battle with the U.S. government. Despite concluding Google had operated an illegal monopoly, U.S. district judge Amit Mehta did not force the company to take remedies such as spinning off its Chrome browser or to stop paying hardware vendors for prime positioning on their platform. Nor did the judge say Google must give users explicit “choice screens” that could have encouraged them to make AI rivals like ChatGPT or Perplexity their default search option.

But Mehta did order Google to undertake one measure that could be a major win for its rivals: The judge ordered the tech giant to share its search index, along with certain user data, with competitors. Appeals by Google and the Justice Department could mean it may take years for the remedy to take effect but, if it goes forward, the order could shake up the competitive landscape for AI.

Google’s crown jewel

A search engine uses something called a search index to find the best web pages to answer a query. That index is an organized list of web addresses, usually ranked by how relevant they are to any particular query. And, by all accounts, Google has the best search index in existence. That’s because Google scrapes data from more of the web, more often, than most competitors. But the company’s dominance also stems from the fact it has been in the search game for so long and sees many more queries than any other company—as many as 13 billion searches every day. This has enabled Google to build a highly-accurate algorithm for ranking pages based on their relevancy and other factors, such as how authoritative a particular source of information is.

This data advantage is particularly profound for less common searches. Google’s search index is in many ways the crown jewel of its tech stack. And, until now, the company has not shared its search index with competitors outside a few specific partnerships, such as ones Google has struck with Apple and Meta.

A search index is vital for more than just search engines. It turns out to be essential to companies building AI chatbots too. Most of today’s chatbots have the ability to search the web in response to a prompt that calls for up-to-date information, such as news, or sports scores, or information about local shopping options. But finding the best web pages for the chatbot to use when formulating a response requires a good search index. A search index can also help AI companies better curate internet data that they might want to feed an AI model during training.

When OpenAI launched ChatGPT in November 2022, it put Google on the defensive. Suddenly there was a new, more conversational way to find information—one that many people preferred to a traditional Google search. At the time, many thought AI chatbots such as ChatGPT and Perplexity, might quickly erode Google’s market position.

That hasn’t happened. But Google has been forced to respond to the advent of AI chatbots by rolling out its own AI chatbot, Gemini, and incorporating AI into its traditional search product. The company now provides AI-generated capsule “overviews” for most search queries and also, in the U.S. and many other geographies, offers an “AI mode” where people can have fuller back-and-forth, chatbot-like conversations to find information from the web. Google’s search index gives Gemini and its AI search tools a powerful advantage over rivals in being able to find the most relevant, authoritative, or accurate web pages from which to draw information.

In fact, OpenAI approached Google in 2024 about a partnership that would have seen the search giant share its search index with the AI company to power searches within ChatGPT, but Google rejected the idea, according to evidence presented during the antitrust trial.

Turning to Bing, or building from scratch

Because Google has so far refused to make its search index available, most AI vendors, such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, and Perplexity, have been forced to look elsewhere. Many have turned to Microsoft, which does allow other companies to pay to use the search index that powers its Bing search engine. But Bing, because it only has about 4% marketshare in search, sees many fewer queries than Google does, and its search index is not considered to be as accurate, especially for those less common queries.

The AI companies have also looked for other ways to enhance their search accuracy. Many have bought a service from an Austin, Texas-based company called SerpiApi that runs Google searches and scrapes the results to create a kind of approximation of the Google search index. OpenAI and Apple were both listed as SerpiApi customers previously, although their logos no longer appear on the company’s website. Perplexity and Meta are listed as current SerpiApi customers.

In addition, many AI companies have been investing millions of dollars to build their own, in-house search indices. OpenAI is among them. But Nick Turley, the company’s vice president and head of ChatGPT, testified at Google’s antitrust trial, that it was not easy to create a search index that could match Google’s. “Our goal—which was a lofty goal, and we’re nowhere near close—is to serve about 80% of our traffic from our own first-party index,” Turley told the court. “We think 100% is long-term attainable, but so far away and so uncertain that it’s not an operationalizable goal, even for a set of smart people who are ambitious and think they can do the impossible.”

Meta has also been reportedly working on building its own search index and search engine, in an effort to reduce its dependence on its current arrangement with Google and its use of the Bing API. The social media giant has also struck a deal with the news agency Reuters to use its content for Meta AI prompts that require information about news and current affairs.

Perplexity, the AI “answer engine” that has tried to position itself as an alternative to Google as a way to find factual information, has also created its own search index. And, it too, has struck partnership deals with a number of news publishers to use their content to answer queries requiring information about current events. (Disclosure: Fortune is one of Perplexity’s media partners.)

Forcing Google to give rivals a leg up

If Judge Mehta’s ruling stands, the path for these AI rivals to match Google’s search performance will have gotten significantly easier. That’s because Mehta told Google it would have to share its search index with others “at marginal cost.”

Google is only required to share a one-time snap-shot of the index, not allow continual access to it, as Bing does with its API. Mehta specifically rejected the idea of ongoing access because he said he wants people to build rival search indexes and was worried that if competitors had continual access to Google’s they would become “free riders,” and not build their own. But even having that snap-shot could give competitors a major leg up in matching Google’s performance.

Mehta also ruled that Google will need to share certain key data on how users interact with search results. This includes information such as where the user is located, what type of device they are using, which links they clicked on, and which links they hovered over and for how long. The judge said Google would need to turn over this data to competitors “at least twice” during the five-year period during which the court’s ordered remedies would apply. Again, this information could help AI companies get closer to building Google-level search indices.

In the end, both aspects of the antitrust ruling could wind up saving the AI companies significant time and money. So at least there’s some silver lining for Google’s AI competitors, in what was otherwise a gloomy day for those hoping to end Google’s dominance as the primary way people find information digitally.

Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Palantir CEO says AI “will destroy” humanities jobs but there will be “more than enough jobs” for people with vocational training

Published

on



Some economists and experts say that critical thinking and creativity will be more important than ever in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), when a robot can do much of the heavy lifting on coding or research. Take Benjamin Shiller, the Brandeis economics professor who recently told Fortune that a “weirdness premium” will be valued in the labor market of the future. Alex Karp, the Palantir founder and CEO, isn’t one of these voices. 

“It will destroy humanities jobs,” Karp said when asked how AI will affect jobs in conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. “You went to an elite school and you studied philosophy — I’ll use myself as an example — hopefully you have some other skill, that one is going to be hard to market.”

Karp attended Haverford College, a small, elite liberal arts college outside his hometown of Philadelphia. He earned a J.D. from Stanford Law School and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Goethe University in Germany. He spoke about his own experience getting his first job. 

Karp told Fink that he remembered thinking about his own career, “I’m not sure who’s going to give me my first job.” 

The answer echoed past comments Karp has made about certain types of elite college graduates who lack specialized skills.

“If you are the kind of person that would’ve gone to Yale, classically high IQ, and you have generalized knowledge but it’s not specific, you’re effed,” Karp said in an interview with Axios in November. 

Not every CEO agrees with Karp’s assessment that humanities degrees are doomed. BlackRock COO Robert Goldstein told Fortune in 2024 that the company was recruiting graduates who studied “things that have nothing to do with finance or technology.” 

McKinsey CEO Bob Sternfels recently said in an interview with Harvard Business Review that the company is “looking more at liberal arts majors, whom we had deprioritized, as potential sources of creativity,” to break out of AI’s linear problem-solving. 

Karp has long been an advocate for vocational training over traditional college degrees. Last year, Palantir launched a Meritocracy Fellowship, offering high school students a paid internship with a chance to interview for a full-time position at the end of four months. 

The company criticized American universities for “indoctrinating” students and having “opaque” admissions that “displaced meritocracy and excellence,” in their announcement of the fellowship. 

“If you did not go to school, or you went to a school that’s not that great, or you went to Harvard or Princeton or Yale, once you come to Palantir, you’re a Palantirian—no one cares about the other stuff,” Karp said during a Q2 earnings call last year.

“I think we need different ways of testing aptitude,” Karp told Fink. He pointed to the former police officer who attended a junior college, who now manages the US Army’s MAVEN system, a Palantir-made AI tool that processes drone imagery and video.  

“In the past, the way we tested for aptitude would not have fully exposed how irreplaceable that person’s talents are,” he said. 

Karp also gave the example of technicians building batteries at a battery company, saying those workers are “very valuable if not irreplaceable because we can make them into something different than what they were very rapidly.”

He said what he does all day at Palantir is “figuring out what is someone’s outlier aptitude. Then, I’m putting them on that thing and trying to get them to stay on that thing and not on the five other things they think they’re great at.” 

Karp’s comments come as more employers report a gap between the skills applicants are offering and what employers are looking for in a tough labor market. The unemployment rate for young workers ages 16 to 24 hit 10.4% in December and is growing among college graduates. Karp isn’t too worried. 

“There will be more than enough jobs for the citizens of your nation, especially those with vocational training,” he said. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

AI is boosting productivity. Here’s why some workers feel a sense of loss

Published

on



Welcome to Eye on AI, with AI reporter Sharon Goldman. In this edition…Why some workers feel a sense of loss while AI boosts productivity…Anthropic raising fresh $10 Billion at $350 billion valuation…Musk’s xAI closed $20 billion funding with Nvidia backing…Can AI do your job? See the results from hundreds of tests.

For months, software developers have been giddy with excitement over “vibe coding”– prompting desired software functions or features in natural language—with the latest AI code generation tools. Anthropic’s Claude Code is the darling of the moment, but OpenAI’s Codex, Cursor and other tools have also led engineers to flood social media with examples of tasks that used to take days and are now finished in minutes. 

Even veteran software design leaders have marvelled at the shift. “In just a few months, Claude Code has pushed the state of the art in software engineering further than 75 years of academic research,” said Erik Meijer, a former senior engineering leader at Meta

Skills honed seem less essential

However, that same delight has turned disorienting for many developers, who are grappling with a sense of loss as skills honed over a lifetime suddenly seem less essential. The feeling of flow—of being “in the zone”—seems to have vanished as building software becomes an exercise in supervising AI tools rather than writing code. 

In a blog post this week titled “The Grief When AI Writes All the Code,” Gergely Orosz of The Pragmatic Engineer, wrote that he is “coming to terms with the high probability that AI will write most of my code which I ship to production.” It already does it faster, he explained, and for languages and frameworks he is less familiar with, it does a better job. 

“It feels like something valuable is being taken away, and suddenly,” he wrote. “It took a lot of effort to get good at coding and to learn how to write code that works, to read and understand complex code, and to debug and fix when code doesn’t work as it should.” 

Andrew Duca, founder of tax software Awaken Tax, wrote a similar post this week that went viral, saying that he was feeling “kinda depressed” even though he finds using Claude Code “incredible” and has “never found coding more fun.” 

He can now solve customer problems faster, and ship more features, but at the same time “the skill I spent 10,000s of hours getting good at…is becoming a full commodity extremely quickly,” he wrote. “There’s something disheartening about the thing you spent most of your life getting good at now being mostly useless.” 

Software development has long been on the front lines of the AI shift, partly because there are decades of code, documentation and public problem-solving (from sites like GitHub) available online for AI models to train on. Coding also has clear rules and fast feedback – it runs or it doesn’t – so AI systems can easily learn how to generate useful responses. That means programming has become one of the first white-collar professions to feel AI’s impact so directly.

These tensions will affect many professions

These tensions, however, won’t be confined to software developers. White-collar workers across industries will ultimately have to grapple with them in one way or another. Media headlines often focus on the possibility of mass layoffs driven by AI; the more immediate issue may be how AI reshapes how people feel about their work. AI tools can move us past the hardest parts of our jobs more quickly—but what if that struggle is part of what allows us to take pride in what we do? What if the most human elements of work—thinking, strategizing, working through problems—are quietly sidelined by tools that prize speed and efficiency over experience?

Of course, there are plenty of jobs and workflows where most people are very happy to use AI to say buh-bye to repetitive grunt work that they never wanted to do in the first place. And as Duca said, we can marvel at the incredible power of the latest AI models and leap to use the newest features even while we feel unmoored. 

Many white-collar workers will likely face a philosophical reckoning about what AI means for their profession—one that goes beyond fears of layoffs. It may resemble the familiar stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and, eventually, acceptance. That acceptance could mean learning how to be the best manager or steerer of AI possible. Or it could mean deliberately carving out space for work done without AI at all. After all, few people want to lose their thinking self entirely.

Or it could mean doing what Erik Meijer is doing. Now that coding increasingly feels like management, he said, he has turned back to making music—using real instruments—as a hobby, simply “to experience that flow.”

With that, here’s more AI news.

Sharon Goldman
sharon.goldman@fortune.com
@sharongoldman

FORTUNE ON AI

As Utah gives the AI power to prescribe some drugs, physicians warn of patient risks – by Beatrice Nolan

Google and Character.AI agree to settle lawsuits over teen suicides linked to AI chatbots – by Beatrice Nolan

OpenAI launches ChatGPT Health in a push to become a hub for personal health data – by Sharon Goldman

Google takes first steps toward an AI product that can actually tackle your email inbox – by Jacqueline Munis

Fusion power nearly ready for prime time as Commonwealth builds first pilot for limitless, clean energy with AI help from Siemens, Nvidia – by Jordan Blum

AI IN THE NEWS

Anthropic raising fresh $10 Billion at $350 billion valuation. According to the Wall Street Journal, OpenAI rival Anthropic is planning to raise $10 billion at a roughly $350 billion valuation, nearly doubling its worth from just four months ago. The round is expected to be led by GIC and Coatue Management, following a $13 billion raise in September that valued the company at $183 billion. The financing underscores the continued boom in AI funding—AI startups raised a record $222 billion in 2025, per PitchBook—and comes as Anthropic is also preparing for a potential IPO this year. Founded in 2021 by siblings Dario Amodei and Daniela Amodei, Anthropic has become a major OpenAI rival, buoyed by Claude’s popularity with business users, major backing from Nvidia and Microsoft, and expectations that it will reach break-even by 2028—potentially faster than OpenAI, which is itself reportedly seeking to raise up to $100 billion at a $750 billion valuation.

Musk’s xAI closed $20 billion funding with Nvidia backing. Bloomberg reported that xAI, the AI startup founded by Elon Musk, has completed a $20 billion funding round backed by investors including Nvidia, Valor Equity Partners, and the Qatar Investment Authority, underscoring the continued flood of capital into AI infrastructure. Other backers include Fidelity Management & Research, StepStone Group, MGX, Baron Capital Group, and Cisco’s investment arm. The financing—months in the making—will fund xAI’s rapid infrastructure buildout and product development, the company said, and includes a novel structure in which a large portion of the capital is tied to a special-purpose vehicle used to buy Nvidia GPUs that are then rented out, allowing investors to recoup returns over time. The deal comes as xAI has been under fire for its chatbot Grok producing non-consensual “undressing” images of real people.

Can AI do your job? See the results from hundreds of tests. I wanted to shout-out this fascinating new interactive feature in the Washington Post, which presented a new study that found that despite fears of mass job displacement, today’s AI systems are still far from being able to replace humans on real-world work. Researchers from Scale AI and the Center for AI Safety tested leading models from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic on hundreds of actual freelance projects—from graphic design and creating dashboards to 3D modeling and games—and found that the best AI systems successfully completed just 2.5% of tasks on their own. While AI often produced outputs that looked plausible at first glance, closer inspection revealed missing details, visual errors, incomplete work, or basic technical failures, highlighting gaps in areas like visual reasoning, long-term memory, and the ability to evaluate subjective outcomes. The findings challenge predictions that AI is poised to automate large swaths of human labor anytime soon, even as newer models show incremental improvement and the economics of cheaper, semi-autonomous AI work continue to put pressure on remote and contract workers.

EYE ON AI NUMBERS

91.8%

That’s the percentage of Meta employees who admitted to not using the company’s AI chatbot, Meta AI, in their day-to-day work, according to new data from Blind, a popular anonymous professional social network. 

 

According to a survey of 400 Meta employees, only 8.2% said they use Meta AI. The most popular chatbot was Anthropic’s Claude, used by more than half (50.7%) of Meta employees surveyed. 17.7% said they use Google’s Gemini and 13.7% said they used OpenAI’s ChatGPT. 

 

When approached for comment, Meta spokesperson pointed out that the number (400 of 77,000+ employees) is “not even a half percent of our total employee population.”

AI CALENDAR

Jan. 19-23: World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland.

Jan. 20-27: AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Singapore.

Feb. 10-11: AI Action Summit, New Delhi, India.

March 2-5: Mobile World Congress, Barcelona, Spain.

March 16-19: Nvidia GTC, San Jose, Calif.

April 6-9: HumanX, San Francisco. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trust has become the crisis CEOs can’t ignore at Davos, as new data show 70% of people turning more ‘insular’

Published

on



Everywhere you turn in Davos this year, people are talking about trust. And there’s no one who knows trust better than Richard Edelman. Back in 1999, Edelman was on the cusp of taking  over the PR firm founded by his father Daniel. Spurred by the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, he decided to try and measure the level of trust in NGOs compared with business, government and media, Edelman surveyed 1,300 thought leaders in the U.S., U.K., France, Germany and Australia, and the Edelman Trust Barometer was born. 

While the survey sample long ago expanded beyond elites to include about 34,000 respondents in 28 nations, its results are still unveiled and debated every year at the ultimate gathering of elites: the World Economic Forum. This year’s findings are grim: About 70% of respondents now have an “insular” mindset: they don’t want to talk to, work for, or even be in the same space with anyone who doesn’t share their world view. And “a sense of grievance” permeates the business world, Edelman finds. At Davos, debating such findings have spawned a series of dinners, panels, cocktails and media briefings on site. What better place to bring people together than the world’s most potent village green?

I moderated a CEO salon dinner with about three dozen leaders last night to discuss what they’re seeing and doing when it comes to building trust. Before the dinner, I asked Edelman what he’d like to see this year, after 26 winters of highlighting the erosion of trust. “Urgency,” he said. “A sense that time is running out.”

Because the gathering itself was held under the Chatham House rule, I won’t share names and direct quotes. But the focus was on how attendees are trying to address the problem through what Edelman calls “trust brokering,” or finding common ground through practices from nonjudgemental communications to “polynational’ business models that invest in long-term local relationships. (See the report for more information.) There were some success stories from the front lines of college campuses, politics and industries caught in a crossfire of misinformation.

Still, the mood was somewhat subdued, with a sense that there’s no easy fix to building trust. As one CEO pointed out, rarely have leaders faced such a confluence of geopolitical crises, tech shifts, economic divides, disinformation, job disruption and wicked problems. And as much as Davos is a great gathering ground to talk through all of these problems, the fact is the problems will all still be waiting once these CEOs return from the mountains.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.