Google challenges judge's ruling in ongoing US antitrust case
Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google's search monopoly gives it an advantage in artificial intelligence products like Gemini and vice versa. PHOTO: PIXABAY
Listen to article
Alphabet's Google on Saturday said it will appeal an antitrust decision under which a federal judge proposed less aggressive ways to restore online search competition than the 10-year regime suggested by antitrust enforcers
"We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal," Google said in a post on X, opens new tab.
US District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington heard closing arguments on Friday at a trial on proposals to address Google's illegal monopoly in online search and related advertising.
In April, a federal judge said that Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, with the US Department of Justice saying that Google should sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company's publisher ad server and its ad exchange.
The DOJ and a coalition of states want Google to share search data and cease multibillion-dollar payments to Apple and other smartphone makers to be the default search engine on new devices.
Antitrust enforcers are concerned about how Google's search monopoly gives it an advantage in artificial intelligence products like Gemini and vice versa.
John Schmidtlein, an attorney for Google, said at the hearing that while generative AI is influencing how search looks, Google has addressed any concerns about competition in AI by no longer entering exclusive agreements with wireless carriers and smartphone makers including Samsung Electronics , leaving them free to load rival search and AI apps on new devices.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
13 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Hey chatbot, is this true? AI ‘factchecks' Pakistan-India war information
WASHINGTON: As misinformation exploded during India's four-day conflict with Pakistan, social media users turned to an AI chatbot for verification – only to encounter more falsehoods, underscoring its unreliability as a fact-checking tool. With tech platforms reducing human fact-checkers, users are increasingly relying on AI-powered chatbots – including xAI's Grok, OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Google's Gemini – in search of reliable information. 'Hey @Grok, is this true?' has become a common query on Elon Musk's platform X, where the AI assistant is built in, reflecting the growing trend of seeking instant debunks on social media. Memes continue: Pakistanis celebrate air dominance over India on social media But the responses are often themselves riddled with misinformation. Grok – now under renewed scrutiny for inserting 'white genocide,' a far-right conspiracy theory, into unrelated queries – wrongly identified old video footage from Sudan's Khartoum airport as a missile strike on Pakistan's Nur Khan airbase during the country's recent conflict with India. Unrelated footage of a building on fire in Nepal was misidentified as 'likely' showing Pakistan's military response to Indian strikes. 'The growing reliance on Grok as a fact-checker comes as X and other major tech companies have scaled back investments in human fact-checkers,' McKenzie Sadeghi, a researcher with the disinformation watchdog NewsGuard, told AFP. 'Our research has repeatedly found that AI chatbots are not reliable sources for news and information, particularly when it comes to breaking news,' she warned. 'Fabricated' NewsGuard's research found that 10 leading chatbots were prone to repeating falsehoods, including Russian disinformation narratives and false or misleading claims related to the recent Australian election. In a recent study of eight AI search tools, the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University found that chatbots were 'generally bad at declining to answer questions they couldn't answer accurately, offering incorrect or speculative answers instead.' When AFP fact-checkers in Uruguay asked Gemini about an AI-generated image of a woman, it not only confirmed its authenticity but fabricated details about her identity and where the image was likely taken. Grok recently labeled a purported video of a giant anaconda swimming in the Amazon River as 'genuine,' even citing credible-sounding scientific expeditions to support its false claim. In reality, the video was AI-generated, AFP fact-checkers in Latin America reported, noting that many users cited Grok's assessment as evidence the clip was real. Such findings have raised concerns as surveys show that online users are increasingly shifting from traditional search engines to AI chatbots for information gathering and verification. The shift also comes as Meta announced earlier this year it was ending its third-party fact-checking program in the United States, turning over the task of debunking falsehoods to ordinary users under a model known as 'Community Notes,' popularized by X. Researchers have repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of 'Community Notes' in combating falsehoods. 'Biased answers' Human fact-checking has long been a flashpoint in a hyperpolarized political climate, particularly in the United States, where conservative advocates maintain it suppresses free speech and censors right-wing content – something professional fact-checkers vehemently reject. AFP currently works in 26 languages with Facebook's fact-checking program, including in Asia, Latin America, and the European Union. The quality and accuracy of AI chatbots can vary, depending on how they are trained and programmed, prompting concerns that their output may be subject to political influence or control. Musk's xAI recently blamed an 'unauthorized modification' for causing Grok to generate unsolicited posts referencing 'white genocide' in South Africa. When AI expert David Caswell asked Grok who might have modified its system prompt, the chatbot named Musk as the 'most likely' culprit. Musk, the South African-born billionaire backer of President Donald Trump, has previously peddled the unfounded claim that South Africa's leaders were 'openly pushing for genocide' of white people. 'We have seen the way AI assistants can either fabricate results or give biased answers after human coders specifically change their instructions,' Angie Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network, told AFP. 'I am especially concerned about the way Grok has mishandled requests concerning very sensitive matters after receiving instructions to provide pre-authorized answers.'
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Google to appeal online search antitrust ruling
The new Google logo is seen in this illustration taken May 13, 2025. Photo:REUTERS Google said Saturday it will appeal a ruling against it for anti-competitive practices in online search, a day after urging a US judge to reject the suggestion it spin off its Chrome browser. "We will wait for the Court's opinion. And we still strongly believe the Court's original decision was wrong, and look forward to our eventual appeal," the tech giant wrote on X. Google was found guilty in the summer of 2024 of illegal practices to establish and maintain its monopoly in online search by a federal judge in Washington. The Justice Department is now demanding remedies that could transform the digital landscape: Google's divestiture from its Chrome browser and a ban on entering exclusivity agreements with smartphone manufacturers to install the search engine by default. The department's proposal "reserves the right for the government to decide who gets Google users' data. Not the Court," Google said Saturday. "While we heard a lot about how the remedies would help various well-funded competitors (w/ repeated references to Bing), we heard very little about how all this helps consumers," Google added, referring to the Microsoft-owned search engine.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
Gary Marcus proposes an alternative to AI models
Two and a half years since ChatGPT rocked the world, scientist and writer Gary Marcus still remains generative artificial intelligence's great skeptic, playing a counter-narrative to Silicon Valley's AI true believers. Marcus became a prominent figure of the AI revolution in 2023, when he sat beside OpenAI chief Sam Altman at a Senate hearing in Washington as both men urged politicians to take the technology seriously and consider regulation. Much has changed since then. Altman has abandoned his calls for caution, instead teaming up with Japan's SoftBank and funds in the Middle East to propel his company to sky-high valuations as he tries to make ChatGPT the next era-defining tech behemoth. "Sam's not getting money anymore from the Silicon Valley establishment," and his seeking funding from abroad is a sign of "desperation," Marcus told AFP on the sidelines of the Web Summit in Vancouver, Canada. Marcus's criticism centers on a fundamental belief: generative AI, the predictive technology that churns out seemingly human-level content, is simply too flawed to be transformative. The large language models (LLMs) that power these capabilities are inherently broken, he argues, and will never deliver on Silicon Valley's grand promises. "I'm skeptical of AI as it is currently practiced," he said. "I think AI could have tremendous value, but LLMs are not the way there. And I think the companies running it are not mostly the best people in the world." The optimism that humanity stands on the cusp of achieving super intelligence or artificial general intelligence (AGI) technology that could match and even surpass human capability, has driven OpenAI's valuation to $300 billion, unprecedented levels for a startup, with Elon Musk's xAI racing to keep pace. Yet for all the hype, the practical gains remain limited. The technology excels mainly at coding assistance and text generation. AI-created images, while often entertaining, serve primarily as memes or deepfakes, offering little obvious benefit to society or business. Marcus, a longtime New York University professor, champions a fundamentally different approach to building AI - one he believes might actually achieve human-level intelligence in ways that current generative AI never will. "One consequence of going all-in on LLMs is that any alternative approach that might be better gets starved out," he explained, pointing out the tunnel vision of the LLMs. 'Right answers matter' Instead, Marcus advocates for neurosymbolic AI, an approach that attempts to rebuild human logic artificially rather than simply training computer models on vast datasets, as is done with ChatGPT and similar products like Google's Gemini or Anthropic's Claude. He dismisses fears that generative AI will eliminate white-collar jobs, citing a simple reality: "There are too many white-collar jobs where getting the right answer actually matters." This points to AI's most persistent problem: hallucinations, the technology's well-documented tendency to produce confident-sounding mistakes. Even AI's strongest advocates acknowledge this flaw may be impossible to eliminate. Marcus recalls a telling exchange from 2023 with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, a Silicon Valley heavyweight: "He bet me any amount of money that hallucinations would go away in three months. I offered him $100,000 and he wouldn't take the bet." Looking ahead, Marcus warns of a darker consequence once investors realize generative AI's limitations. Companies like OpenAI will inevitably monetize their most valuable asset: user data. "The people who put in all this money will want their returns, and I think that's leading them toward surveillance," he said, pointing to Orwellian risks for society. "They have all this private data, so they can sell that as a consolation prize." Marcus acknowledges that generative AI will find useful applications in areas where occasional errors don't matter much. "They're very useful for auto-complete on steroids: coding, brainstorming, and stuff like that," he said. "But nobody's going to make much money off it because they're expensive to run, and everybody has the same product."
