Searching on Google has consisted, for more than two decades, of consulting a list of different sources of information, ordered according to SEO and advertising criteria. In March, the most used search engine on the Internet in Spain incorporated the “view created with AI”: a summary generated by Gemini, the artificial intelligence developed by the same company, which responds directly to the query and precedes the list of all other links.
This change has sparked a new relationship with knowledge. If Google was a mediator that presented possible answers through information sources, this new search engine favors a single result, often partial but formulated in the form of a definitive answer. For Jorge Carrión, author of Membrane (Gutenberg Galaxy, 2021) e Electromagnetic fields (Caja Negra, 2023), the novelty simplifies the digital ecosystem: “We have gone from the multiplicity of possible responses to the simulation of a single response, from polytheism to a sort of monotheism. This can obviously be dangerous.”
Carrión (Tarragona, 49 years old) recalls that 25 years ago Google had already transformed the way we related to information. The company began to organize links according to its own criteria and differentiated itself from library economic criteria: “Google offers links according to criteria that may be more or less noble, but at least there was a multiplicity of answers.”
Some, more alarmist, believe that the use of artificial intelligence compromises critical thinking. One of them is the Italian philosopher Franco Bifo Berardi. Even if the synthesis “buys time”, it unifies ideas: “The exploitation of the network by artificial intelligence is destroying the Internet. It is a new leap towards the total homologation of research, but also of knowledge and, ultimately, of the human brain”, he replies via email. The argument, taken from an article written by programmer Paul Graham, states that if younger generations continue to learn and write through chatbots, they will stop thinking, because there is no logical, critical and individual thinking without writing. “It’s not just online searches that are disappearing; human thinking is disappearing,” he says.
Similar is the position of Éric Sadin, a French philosopher who analyzes the problems of technology and generative artificial intelligence. In The ghostly life (Caja Negra, 2024), is wary of the decision-making power that chatbots claim to grant individuals: “In truth, these processors have the sole objective of being the ones who influence our behaviors,” he writes. With its answers, for him, AI influences the actions of human beings by imposing the points of view of those who control them.
It’s unclear in which cases Google displays the Gemini response. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, this happens when searches are longer or formulated in the form of questions. The same study also measured the impact of this tool in the digital universe. When the search engine displays the Gemini summary, in 92% of cases users leave Google without visiting any pages. The phenomenon is known as “zero-click searches.” On the other hand, in searches that do not offer a summary, link clicks double. Similarweb, a software development company, provided similar diagnoses and warned of the risk to media traffic.
Google version does not match. He assured that since the vision of artificial intelligence has existed, traffic to web pages has remained stable and “quality” searches have even increased. It does not provide specific figures or clarify in which searches the summary does or does not appear. But Gemini contradicts the company that created it: when asked about traffic since the view created with artificial intelligence existed, it says that clicks on links have decreased. For lawyer Anabel Arias, the concern of companies and the media is reasonable: “If the view of artificial intelligence summarizes the results found on the Internet, it prevents people from clicking on other sites.”
European law requires search engines to be transparent about how they sort results. But it’s unclear, in Google’s case, whether Gemini is considered part of the search engine. If he were, he should explain the criteria with which he chooses and discard the sources with which he constructs his answers, which are so far unknown.
Despite the lack of transparency, the tool is efficient and the results seem real. Nayef al Rodhan, a Saudi philosopher and neuroscientist, shares this idea, saying via email that it “saves time and mental effort in specific consultations.” For him the incorporation of Gemini is a relevant change and much is gained from quick and understandable answers. Cristina Aranda (Madrid, 49 years old) is also positive about the summaries. Linguist, philologist and author of future lives (Aguilar, 2024), believes that it is useful if you want to get a general idea of something. Like speakers, he explains, artificial intelligence uses Paul Grice’s principle of cooperation, according to which the premise of all communication is to make oneself understood.
Artificial intelligence relies so much on this principle that it becomes complacent and, in extreme cases, can go so far as to invent an answer: “That’s why a critical spirit and access to reliable sources when you need to delve deeper is essential. But if you make things easy for me in principle, my cognitive effort will be less. Humans are lazy,” Aranda sums up. Al Rodhan, who advocates the adoption of this technology, also highlights the importance of confirmation and the possible mental laziness that comes from its use in critical work. And Google’s built-in Gemini summaries are based on the same principle of simplicity that has become the maxim of web design: don’t make me think.
But it is the ideological and cultural conditions that have allowed us to place trust in the vision created with AI. Speed, one of its successes, is considered a value in the logic of capital. “The main value of capitalist society is the accumulation of value,” says Berardi (Bologna, 76 years old). “The production of value is growing rapidly and the use of chatbots accelerates research. Thought, consciousness and sensitivity must instead disappear for the cycle of valorisation of capital to accelerate.”
Carrión ventures almost religious reasons. After five centuries of humanism, he sees possible an era with a greater connection to faith and a monotheistic world. And it finds a parallel in the construction of contemporary political ideologies: “It is easier to think that all problems derive from migration than to analyze that the causes of the problems are multiple.”
But the glory of Gemini will not last forever. A European Commission project aims to reduce the power imbalance between search engines and users and limit complex designs and convoluted access. Anabel Arias gives an example: “If a user wants to stop Gemini from using their research and opinions to train, they have to go through countless clicks and steps. It is designed in such a way that the user gives up.” Carrión is inclined to think that, as in music, both models will be maintained. As vinyl coincides with Spotify, unique response and multiplicity will coexist.
