The Great AI-ening: Exploring the Controversy of Web Crawling in Journalism and Its Impact on Content Ownership

To go back to this article, head to My Profile, and then click on Saved Stories.

Purchases made through links in our articles may result in a commission for us. Find out more.

Lauren Goode and Kate Knibbs

The Art of Web Crawling: From Essential Tool to AI Fuel?

For years, web crawling, the technique of gathering data from the internet, has been a fundamental operation. Search giants like Google, along with nonprofit organizations such as the Internet Archive and Common Crawl, have utilized this method to document and organize the vast expanse of online information, making it accessible. Traditionally, this mechanism hasn't sparked much debate, as it was crucial for ensuring websites were discoverable by the public. However, with the recent surge in artificial intelligence applications, web crawling has taken on a new role. It's now a cornerstone for companies including Google and Perplexity AI, which use the technology to compile extensive articles into concise summaries, marking a significant shift in the perception and application of web crawling technology.

This week's episode of Gadget Lab features a discussion with WIRED's senior journalist Kate Knibbs about the practice of web scraping and the debate surrounding Common Crawl. Later, we engage in a conversation with Randall Lane, the chief content officer and editor at Forbes, on the issue of Perplexity.AI using a Forbes piece and showcasing it as original content without obtaining prior approval or giving appropriate credit.

Episode Notes

Explore Kate’s article on the battle between publishers and Common Crawl regarding the use of AI training data. Check out Randall’s piece on Preplexity.AI's replication of the efforts of two journalists from Forbes.

Suggestions

Randall suggests checking out his latest horse racing venture, the National Thoroughbred League. Kate suggests giving the book Victim by Andrew Boryga a read. Lauren puts forward the show Hacks on Max as her recommendation.

You can follow Randall Lane on social media at the handle @RandallLane. Kate Knibbs uses the handle @Knibbs. For Lauren Goode, it's @LaurenGoode. Michael Calore goes by @snackfight. Reach out to the primary contact point at @GadgetLab. Boone Ashworth (@booneashworth) is responsible for the show's production. The theme music comes courtesy of Solar Keys.

Listening Guide

To tune into this week's podcast episode, utilize the audio player available on our website. However, for those interested in automatically receiving every episode, here's the method to subscribe at no cost:

For iPhone or iPad users, launch the Podcasts app or simply click on this link. Alternatively, you might consider downloading apps such as Overcast or Pocket Casts and look up Gadget Lab. Android users aren’t left out; you can locate us within the Google Podcasts app by clicking here. We're also available on Spotify. Additionally, should you require it, here is the RSS feed link.

Transcript Notice: Please be aware that this transcript was generated automatically and may include inaccuracies.

Lauren Goode: Kate.

Kate Knibbs: Lauren.

Authored by Christopher

By [Your Name

Authored by Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

Lauren Goode: Clearly, you're not Mike.

Kate Knibbs: While I'm not him, I'm thrilled to step into his role at the Gadget Lab.

Lauren Goode: I'm equally thrilled about this, not only because it's always enjoyable being around you, but also because we're hosting a special guest this week who will delve into AI's role in scraping news websites, a topic you've extensively reported on.

Kate Knibbs mentions that in the current era, whenever you come across a piece of writing, it's crucial to verify if it was authored by a person or an AI, as the chances are equally likely.

Lauren Goode: It seems deeply philosophical.

Kate Knibbs: When does it lack a fundamental essence?

Lauren Goode: That's an interesting point, and it merits discussion.

Kate Knibbs: Alright, let's proceed.

[The intro music for Gadget Lab starts playing]

Lauren Goode: Hello, everyone. It's great to have you here at Gadget Lab. My name is Lauren Goode, and I serve as a senior writer for WIRED. As indicated in our opening, Mike won't be joining us this week. Therefore, I have the pleasure of having Kate Knibbs, another senior writer from WIRED, stepping in as my co-host for today, and perhaps even beyond. Kate, I really appreciate you being here.

Kate Knibbs: Thrilled. It's always a joy to impersonate Mike.

Lauren Goode: Kate, I invited you to join me as co-host this week primarily because of your extensive work reporting on AI copyright matters. Additionally, for our audience's benefit, I'd like to highlight that Randall Lane, the Chief Content Officer at Forbes, will feature in the latter part of our program. Forbes has recently been in conflict with a highly publicized AI company over allegations of unauthorized use of Forbes' proprietary content. We plan to explore this issue in detail during our discussion.

Initially, Kate, I'm curious about the mechanics behind this evolution. Rewind a couple of decades, roughly a quarter-century back, search engines were busy scanning the internet to present us with a list of links and search outcomes, allowing us to explore data through these links. Artificial intelligence has been the backbone of generating these search outcomes from the start. However, currently, advanced AI technologies aim to transform the search experience by essentially condensing the content. Could you explain the process behind this?

Kate Knibbs mentions that web crawling, an integral part of the internet's infrastructure since the inception of search engines, has historically been a non-issue. Initially, content creators and website owners, including media firms, were generally open to letting their sites be indexed by search engines such as Google, as it helped in promoting their content. Additionally, various not-for-profit organizations and academic institutions have engaged in web crawling for different purposes, with Common Crawl being a notable example among them. Knibbs has recently covered their efforts. Another entity, the Internet Archive, also utilizes web crawling. However, the practice has attracted increased attention and scrutiny in the last few years, particularly because it serves as a crucial source of data for training artificial intelligence systems.

By Christopher Null

Authored by Christopher

By Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

Historically, there have been some disputes, notably when the company Clearview controversially collected billions of images from Facebook profiles for its unsettling facial recognition technology. However, we're now moving into an era where the practice of web scraping is under intensified examination. This shift in focus is primarily due to AI enterprises harvesting vast quantities of publicly available online data to refine their sophisticated tools, ranging from expansive language models to innovative image, video, and audio generators. Consequently, content creators, including media platforms and independent artists and authors, are recognizing the immense value of their contributions that form the foundation of these multimillion-dollar businesses. This realization has sparked a widespread debate on whether the current methodology of data utilization should persist unchanged or if creators should receive compensation for their contributions.

Lauren Goode explains that traditionally, search engines acted as gateways to information, necessitating users to click through to websites. However, advancements, particularly in large language models, have transformed search engines into tools that provide concise summaries directly in the search results. This shift appeals to many users who prefer quick, summarized content over navigating through multiple links. While some enjoy the exploration involved in browsing various links, there are concerns among those focused on how content is monetized. They caution against a wholesale move towards summarized content, highlighting potential issues in the content ecosystem.

Kate Knibbs: Absolutely. The ultimate goal for tech giants like Google, as they roll out AI-driven features like overviews or Perplexity's unique summaries, is to keep users engaged on their platform by offering AI-generated summaries instead of having them navigate away to other websites. This shift significantly alters the current relationship between the web content aggregators and the original content creators. Previously, those who generated content at least benefited from increased visibility. However, these aggregators now aim to benefit both ways, keeping users on their site while still leveraging external content. This development raises significant concerns about the future impact on the online landscape.

Lauren Goode: Can you share the worst case you've encountered of an AI system harvesting content from a news website? It's worth noting that just a few weeks back, you were a guest on our podcast together with our colleague, Reece Rogers, who had discussed his experience of discovering his article had been copied. It seems we've all experimented with these technologies and seen a range of outcomes. What stands out to you as the most striking instance you've come across?

Kate Knibbs: Speaking as myself, the most blatant example I've encountered is the unauthorized use of my articles. Following Reece's discussions on the matter, I conducted an experiment with some of my latest articles for WIRED on the topic of web scraping, only to discover these firms were engaging in the same practices. Indeed, it's a disheartening experience. Having your work distilled by automated systems doesn't sit well, especially when they fail to adequately acknowledge your authorship or make it straightforward for readers to access the original content.

Authored by Christopher

Authored by Christopher

Authored by Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

Lauren Goode inquired if there's an understanding of the real-world application of the latest AI-driven search platforms and whether they're truly impacting the market. She noted that, according to a conversation a few months back with the cofounder and CEO of Perplexity, the platform had garnered 15 million active users. However, this figure seems minor, especially when compared to giants like Google or Bing, with Google being the primary focus. Nonetheless, Google has also started incorporating AI summaries. Hence, the question arises: Are these emerging platforms really changing the game?

Kate Knibbs expresses her views on Perplexity, noting its growing user base despite being a relatively minor player in the market. She highlights the significant move by Google to introduce AI summaries, emphasizing its impact. Knibbs recently covered how Google scaled back on presenting AI summaries shortly after their launch, recognizing their flaws, which included inappropriate suggestions, like adding glue to pizza. Although the reduction in AI overview presentations might seem minor, she believes certain publishers are already experiencing notable shifts in web traffic due to these AI-driven summaries. Knibbs speculates that if Perplexity hasn’t yet altered web traffic patterns significantly, it’s likely only a matter of time before it or another emerging platform does. She suggests that the adoption of summary technologies by major tech companies will inevitably affect the media landscape sooner rather than later.

Lauren Goode observes that many individuals commonly use the term ChatGPT to describe the latest AI-driven search engines and chatbots, likening it to how "Kleenex" became a generic term for tissues. She notes that ChatGPT, while sharing the same underlying artificial intelligence technology and functioning in a comparable manner, differs slightly, particularly in its user interface. Goode questions whether it's misleading to lump ChatGPT together with AI search capabilities.

Kate Knibbs: Affirmative.

Lauren Goode: So, I gather that Perplexity is presenting itself as a search engine, a novel search mechanism, but is it truly identical to the conventional search methods we're accustomed to?

Kate Knibbs: It's crucial to recognize that ChatGPT stands apart from other AI tools such as AI summaries or Perplexity because it doesn't offer news updates. Unlike those tools, ChatGPT lacks the capability to provide current information, as it doesn't have access to the latest news in the same manner.

Lauren Goode: It lacks time-based features. It doesn't handle geographical positioning. I'm pretty sure it doesn't even provide weather updates.

Kate Knibbs believes that ChatGPT represents a unique development, and in discussing the emergence of AI-driven search engines, she points out that Google may want users to view AI summaries as a natural continuation of their existing services. However, she highlights a significant shift in Google's strategy, moving away from acting as a gateway to various websites. This change, she argues, will alter how individuals interact with the internet, encouraging users to stay within Google's ecosystem rather than exploring content from diverse media sources.

By Christopher Null

Authored by Christopher

By Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

I wouldn't exactly claim that it no longer functions as a search engine, but it has certainly evolved beyond that. A more fitting description, in my opinion, would be a "summary engine." That's how I'd refer to them now – as summary engines.

Lauren Goode: Nicely worded. Okay, let's pause briefly, and upon our return, we'll dive deeper into the topic of AI search engines with our distinguished guest.

Certainly, I'd

Lauren Goode: In this edition of Gadget Lab, we're thrilled to have the Chief Content Officer of Forbes Media, Randall Lane, with us. Randall, it's a pleasure to have you with us today.

Randall Lane: Hello, Lauren. Hello, Kate. Are you familiar with the tale of Wally Pipp? Does that name ring any bells for you?

Lauren Goode: No. Please elaborate.

Randall Lane: Wally Pipp was a leading player holding the first baseman position for the New York Yankees. On a certain occasion, he was sidelined due to a headache, prompting the manager to introduce a fresh player, Lou Gehrig, into the lineup. Gehrig went on to play in an impressive streak of 2,130 consecutive games, effectively ending Pipp's career with the Yankees. Kate, this is akin to your opportunity to step into the spotlight, much like Gehrig did.

Lauren Goode: Unfortunate Michael.

Randall Lane: I'm hoping Mike isn't suffering too much from his headache.

Lauren Goode: Currently, he's away attending a conference on behalf of the brand, WIRED.

Randall Lane is seizing an opportunity.

Lauren Goode: … regretfully, Mike, it's your turn to leave.

Randall Lane: Kate is our equivalent of Lou Gehrig. Let's move forward.

Lauren Goode: Indeed.

Kate Knibbs: Randall, for a moment there, I was convinced you were about to reveal that Lou Gehrig was actually an artificial intelligence, Kate.

Randall Lane: That's on the horizon. That's what's up ahead.

Lauren Goode: Indeed. Should Kate not step in for Michael, artificial intelligence will. Now, Randall, you have colleagues at Forbes who encountered a problematic situation with the AI search engine, Perplexity. They've reported incidents of their content being copied by Perplexity. Can you share the details of what transpired?

Randall Lane explained that their exclusive coverage wasn't being acknowledged. Forbes has a dedicated team of reporters committed to uncovering unique stories, a kind of investigative journalism that sets them apart. In this instance, journalists Sarah Emerson and Rich Nieva spent months investigating a covert drone project led by Eric Schmidt, revealing his tests with military drones, including activities in Menlo Park. Following Forbes' publication, which generated significant attention, Perplexity released a similar report. However, Perplexity's acknowledgment of Forbes' original work was minimal, limited to obscure footnotes marked with a tiny 'F'—so inconspicuous that one would struggle to notice without knowing Forbes' specific font style. Perplexity didn't reference Forbes directly in their narrative, yet proceeded to develop both a podcast and a video based on the story, leaving Forbes' contribution barely recognized.

By Christopher Null

By [Your Name

By Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

The reason our narrative is accessible only through a subscription is because it's considered premium journalism, the type that typically warrants a financial contribution from readers. Perplexity, on the other hand, has been referring to our exclusive report as though it's a common piece of information, without properly crediting us. Instead, they cited another article by Business Insider, which in reality, only provided a summary of our original work. Our report was based on exclusive findings, making us the sole origin of its content. While there was mention of a secondary source, it was essentially reiterating what we had already disclosed, with proper acknowledgment directed towards us. This scenario inadvertently gained attention, despite not being a product of mere search engine activities. The possibility of generating indirect traffic through the very subtle and arguably inadequate citations does exist. However, it's baffling to consider ourselves just another referenced source in a story that was entirely our own creation. That's the situation as it unfolded.

Lauren Goode: Could you clarify what you meant when you mentioned that Perplexity published a piece similar to yours? I'd like you to elaborate for our listeners who might not be familiar with Perplexity.

Randall Lane: Absolutely. In essence, Perplexity acts as a comprehensive summarization tool, as you've mentioned. It provides an extended summary that gives you the entirety of the story, rather than just a brief overview. But it went beyond mere summarization. The wording was noticeably similar, with parts of the story seemingly copied. Additionally, there was an illustration related to an earlier piece we published on Eric Schmidt that appeared in their content. In plain terms, this amounts to plagiarism.

Lauren Goode: However, it required a nudge. Someone needed to navigate to Perplexity and enter, "How about Eric Schmidt's drone?"

Randall Lane: Perplexity has introduced a new offering that essentially streams narratives. Essentially, they're now releasing digests. There was no need for a prompt; it came out as a narrative they distributed. They're mimicking a news organization, repurposing our quality journalism into condensed tales featuring snippets of our sentences, comparable language, and even one of our previous illustrations. Although they have made updates to the initial model, which shows some improvement, it still falls short. They claim this falls under fair use, which it clearly does not.

Kate Knibbs: They claimed it fell under fair use. What more did they add? How did they react when you pointed out they had plagiarized you?

Randall Lane pointed out that the term "fair use" was likely not mentioned by the team, indicating a possible misunderstanding of the concept by them. He referred to a statement made by Aravind Srinivas, the CEO of Perplexity, on the social platform X, describing the issue as a feature of their new product, acknowledging it had certain "rough edges." Lane emphasized that experimenting with a product that involves taking content from others crosses a line beyond mere imperfections. He acknowledged that subsequent adjustments were made to better highlight the sources at the beginning of the content. However, he noted that in one instance, a Business Insider article was listed as the primary source while a Forbes article, which contained the original and exclusive content, was only secondary.

By Christopher Null

By [Your Name

Authored by Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

Interestingly, for a period, your efforts on the Forbes article were connected to a report by Business Insider. Thus, the term "rough edges" certainly applies. Once more, I want to clarify that I have no issue with this. As someone who is optimistic about AI, I welcome those who are navigating their way through it. However, perhaps it would be wise to hold off on launching it until it's fully understood. Furthermore, there's a need to establish a model that ensures mutual benefits, as this situation fundamentally disrupts the traditional relationship between publishers and search engines that has been in place for the past decade and a half.

Lauren Goode: From what I've gathered, Forbes has taken measures to prevent AI search engines, such as Perplexity, from indexing its site by essentially blocking the robot.txt search engine bots. Despite these precautions, it appears this issue persists, doesn't it?

Randall Lane: This situation brings up numerous broader concerns. The main issue at hand is our ability to coexist. Considering Google's market value reaches into the trillions, it's likely equivalent to the combined worth of virtually all publishers worldwide. Despite this, there exists a symbiotic relationship where Google directs considerable web traffic to various publishers, while simultaneously generating vast revenues from it. The question then becomes, what happens to this dynamic as machines capable of generating summaries start to take on the role of publishers?

Once more, they identify as a search engine, yet their behavior mirrors that of a publisher, presenting a situation with no return. This marks a critical juncture, wherein technology reaches a point that many anticipated as a future challenge. However, the issue has already arrived. The question now is, how will we address it?

Kate Knibbs: How can platforms like Forbes effectively prevent such incidents, beyond raising their voices? Perhaps Perplexity will seriously consider the feedback and completely overhaul its approach. However, if there's no change, what's the next step?

Randall Lane: There are several approaches to consider. One might involve legal action, which isn't ideal, but it's the straightforward response when faced with theft. However, over time, this approach becomes akin to playing a never-ending game of whack-a-mole, which isn't really sustainable. Another possibility is an ongoing battle. But a third, more promising route, thanks to advances in technology, involves finding a way for all parties to coexist fairly.

OpenAI has embarked on collaborations with publishers aimed at training. This approach is distinct from repurposing content to create similar derivative works that mirror the original material closely. Consequently, we find ourselves venturing into an uncharted territory. Interestingly, right on the heels of a related event, Perplexity announced its plans to introduce a new partnership framework with publishers. However, the specifics of this new model are yet to unfold. It's important to highlight the significant investment involved in producing content. From the detailed reporting to the creative aspects like art, design, and editing, the production of such content demands substantial financial resources, often amounting to thousands or, in certain cases, tens of thousands of dollars.

By [Your Name

Crafted by Christopher

By Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

If someone proposes a partnership for merely 50 dollars, it poses a significant risk. Such propositions threaten the nation as they undermine the pursuit of in-depth, quality journalism. While employing a tool to summarize widely reported news is tolerable, it's entirely different when it comes to exclusive content that serves as the foundation of democracy and ensures the accuracy of information. Replicating such crucial content in our own style raises questions about the nature of this partnership. It's a matter that requires immediate attention and resolution, rather than delaying it for future consideration.

Lauren Goode: Regarding the idea of OpenAI compensating media organizations for access to their historical records to refine their algorithms, I'm a bit unclear on what exactly is meant by 'archives' in this context. However, accessing a media outlet's historical content certainly presents a distinct proposition. This is different from gathering, modifying, and redistributing content such as the exclusive, in-depth reports you mentioned, or any other exclusive stories, or even the latest news events. These types of content hold a unique appeal for viewers, often being something they're prepared to spend money on.

Randall Lane: Absolutely. And it's worth noting, as Google evolved into the giant it is today, it certainly faced its share of challenges. However, a balance was eventually established, likely favoring Google, but nonetheless, a balance that benefited both parties. Without achieving such a balance, we're heading towards significant issues, as this would essentially decimate the journalistic framework in the United States.

Kate Knibbs: Honestly, this situation is like a blast from the past for me, reminiscent of the early 2000s when blogs first took off. It was a tumultuous time for the news world, with numerous aggregators condensing in-depth, investigative reports into brief 400-word summaries, often just tipping their hats to the original sources. This seismic shift really disrupted the traditional media landscape. And truthfully, that's where I cut my teeth in the industry. Starting out in the trenches of blog aggregation, I witnessed firsthand how these types of blogs eventually faded away, largely overshadowed by the rise of dominant online platforms.

Lauren Goode: When you say platforms, are you referring to Facebook and Google?

Kate Knibbs: Definitely Facebook and Google, without a doubt.

Lauren Goode: Marketing Platforms.

Kate Knibbs: Currently, with the platforms handling the summarization and aggregation, it seems significantly more challenging to envision a path towards harmonious coexistence. So, is it justified for me to experience a profound feeling of unease at this moment? Randall, do you see any grounds for hope that a fair equilibrium can be achieved?

Randall Lane: I remain hopeful, believing that fear, while valid, also presents possibilities. However, this concept of a summarization tool falls apart if there's no content to condense. There's the danger of descending into a scenario where quality content diminishes and only the inferior remains, leading us towards a bleak outlook for news. I hold onto the belief that there's ample chance and financial incentive for discerning individuals to consider ways to promote and strengthen reliable and high-quality journalism.

By Christopher Null

Authored by Christopher

Authored by Adrienne So

By Julian Chokkattu

We are also on the threshold of a new era characterized by the potential of technology to enable potentially a million individuals to produce upwards of a thousand articles daily. This opens the door to a limitless supply of content that is already on the horizon. In such a scenario, platforms like Forbes or WIRED could find their value significantly enhanced. There's a forward-looking model I envision where collaborators recognize and appreciate this increased worth. This necessitates careful consideration, not solely for civic reasons, though they are important, but also for economic reasons. The entire system is at risk of failure if there isn't a steady output of content that attracts and retains the interest and financial backing of the audience.

Lauren Goode: And obviously, we're diving deep into a very self-referential topic on this media-focused podcast. It's all about media – we're both in it and discussing its importance and how it makes money. Our perspective might be a bit skewed since we're passionate about ensuring the digital world is filled with quality, reliable content. Media organizations have felt the sting of challenging partnerships with major tech players in the past. As Kate pointed out, when these large platforms altered the landscape of digital media, numerous media outlets began collaborating with companies like Facebook. Within our circles, there's a frequently mentioned term, "the pivot to video." This phrase has come to symbolize the notion of forming concrete partnerships, sometimes involving financial arrangements, with media outlets to produce specific types of content, in this scenario, video content, in hopes of getting that content more visibility. However, these tech giants could, without notice, decide to change everything.

It's understandable that individuals are exhibiting some caution concerning matters such as the agreement between OpenAI and media outlets like Business Insider and the Atlantic. Despite these organizations receiving immediate compensation for their content, there's a prevailing concern that these arrangements may lack foresight and the technology involved could evolve unexpectedly.

It's also worth noting that we made an effort to contact Perplexity to gather some insights into their strategy for managing this situation. We inquired about the methods Perplexity uses to access content behind paywalls, especially from websites that block automated crawlers, and questioned how Perplexity intends to integrate user feedback and modify its search engine's functionality to perhaps offer a more morally sound approach to summarizing original news articles. As of the recording, we have not received a response.

Randall, it's great to have you with us at Gadget Lab this week for this discussion. We'll be keeping an eye on how things progress. Stay with us, as we'd like you to be part of our upcoming segment, Recommendations.

Certainly, I'll

Lauren Goode: Randall, being the special guest today, what would you suggest to the followers of Gadget Lab, other than becoming subscribers to Forbes?

By Christopher Null

Authored by Christopher

By Adrienne So

By Julian Chokkattu

Randall Lane is encouraging people to subscribe to Forbes for quality journalism as a primary point. On another note, he shared that over the weekend, he and some collaborators have been working on the second season of an innovative horse racing league known as the National Thoroughbred League. They've recently made an announcement about entering their second season. This season includes events taking place over weekends in cities such as Nashville, Philadelphia, and Phoenix. The league offers a fresh take on horse racing, reminiscent of the excitement found at the Kentucky Derby or in Formula One, but with a unique twist of being team-oriented. Notably, personalities like basketball legend Julius Erving, also known as Dr. J, will be part of the Philadelphia team, and Tanya Tucker, a celebrated figure in the Country Music Hall of Fame, will be hosting the event in Nashville. Lane points out that this league is a must-see for those interested in sports innovation, especially with its focus on incorporating new technology. For more details, he directs interested individuals to visit the National Thoroughbred League's website at ntl.racing.

Lauren Goode: Are you initiating a new league?

Randall Lane: Absolutely. Forbes focuses on the spirit of entrepreneurship.

Lauren Goode: I believe you're the inaugural guest on Gadget Lab to promote their personal horse racing league. This is truly groundbreaking.

Randall Lane explains that Forbes champions the spirit of entrepreneurship, emphasizing the practice by occasionally spotlighting employees who run their own startup ventures. The company fosters an environment that supports entrepreneurial activities. With his children now attending college, Lane mentions he's looking for activities to fill his weekends.

Kate Knibbs inquired, "Do any robotic horses play a part?"

Randall Lane: No, however, we plan to explore this area. Artificial Intelligence is set to revolutionize all aspects of life, including the realm of sports.

Lauren Goode: Do you have a preferred name for a horse? Would you consider naming a horse Perplexity?

Randall Lane: Confusion? Sounds like a promising concept.

Lauren Goode: That sounds like a great name for a horse.

Randall Lane: The act of stealing and being stolen from share a similarity.

Lauren Goode: What are the ways in which viewers can tune into your competitions?

Randall Lane emphasizes the appeal of attending these races, which are accessible for purchase at ntl.racing. He highlights the event's draw, noting that each race weekend attracts thousands of attendees. The allure, according to Lane, lies in the combination of entertainment options available – from parties and music to food, mirroring the festive atmosphere of the Kentucky Derby. However, these thrilling weekends are rare in horse racing, much like Formula One races in the United States, which only occur three times a year. Lane positions these events as unique opportunities, especially appealing to the forward-thinking and innovative audience of the podcast, promising an exciting and youthful experience that's worth checking out.

Lauren Goode: Honestly, I might as well wrap up the podcast now because how can anyone top that? Just kidding, Kate.

Kate Knibbs: I'm going to share my advice. My advice, however, is not—

Lauren Goode: What do you suggest?

Randall Lane: Just so you know, Kate and Lauren, you've got complimentary passes. Make plans for Nashville this Labor Day weekend; we expect to see you there.

By [Your Name

By Christopher Solomon

Authored by Adrienne So

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

Kate Knibbs: Count me in. Absolutely. So, what I suggest is… Regrettably, I've got to pull myself together. I haven't joined any book clubs as of yet, so give me a few months and I'll return. My suggestion is a novel. I'm always eager to suggest novels here since reading is essentially my favorite pastime, which might come as a surprise for a writer, right? And the book I'm about to mention might seem like a hard sell because it's a satire on the concept of being overly politically correct, which could easily be seen as the least appealing theme for a book. However, it's titled Victim. It marks the first published work of an author named Andrew Boryga, and it's genuinely humorous. While reading it, you get this feeling that it's only a matter of time before it gets picked up for adaptation. I can see it being turned into a high-quality limited series on a network like HBO pretty soon. It was released in the spring. For those in search of an intellectual yet engaging beach read, this is the book I'd point you towards.

Lauren Goode: Well said.

Kate Knibbs suggests that if you're heading to the horse races, consider picking it up.

Lauren Goode: Wonderful. I appreciate your input.

Kate Knibbs: Lauren, could you share your suggestion?

Lauren Goode: Unfortunately, I'm not suggesting a horse racing competition either. Instead, my pick is Hacks, season 3, available on Max. For those already familiar with Hacks, you're aware of its premise. The third season is absolutely enjoyable. To those new to the series, it revolves around a seasoned female comedian who teams up with a young, cynical yet brilliantly funny and sharp writer. Initially, they clash quite a bit, resembling the proverbial mix of oil and water. However, this young writer turns out to be just what the veteran comedian needs to rejuvenate her career, despite their sometimes volatile dynamic. It's an entertaining show with lots of laughs.

Season 3 is phenomenal. The team comes together again for a collaborative writing effort. It feels like a masterclass in television writing, where everything is meticulously crafted. The season is clearly driven by a specific objective that they all work diligently to achieve. Alongside, the supporting cast adds significant depth. The dynamics of the main relationship fluctuate beautifully, blending humor with heartfelt moments. Additionally, the season wraps up with an unexpected twist that caps it off perfectly. To me, it represented the ideal season, punctuated by a memorable line near its conclusion. The central message of the series is the distinction between a hack, who repetitively delivers predictable outcomes, and a true artist, who is in a constant state of growth and innovation. As a writer myself, this resonated deeply with me. Therefore, I highly recommend giving Hacks season 3 a watch.

Kate Knibbs: Seems like the ideal choice for entertainment while flying to attend an emerging horse racing event for startups.

Lauren Goode: Ideal timepiece.

Kate Knibbs: For those who'd rather not read.

Lauren Goode: Heading to Nashville. I'd reckon it's a notch above the usual B-grade movies you watch during a flight.

By Christopher Null

By Christopher Solomon

Certainly! However, you haven't

Authored by Julian Chokkattu

Okay, that wraps up this week's episode. Randall, we're truly grateful for your presence. It's not often we invite someone from outside to join us on the Gadget Lab podcast, but your insights have made for a fascinating discussion, and we're thankful for the effort you've made to shed light on these matters.

Randall Lane: It's a pleasure to join. Appreciate it, everyone.

Lauren Goode: And Kate, you're a fantastic co-host.

Kate Knibbs: I appreciate it. Just make sure not to swap me out for my AI counterpart.

Lauren Goode: Unfortunately, it seems like there's already someone working on synthesizing our voices as we speak, which includes yours truly. However, we still need your presence here, in person. We're grateful to everyone tuning in. Should you want to share your thoughts or feedback, we're all available on Twitter. You'll notice Forbes contributors actively sharing their insights on the ongoing developments in Perplexity. Truly, you can connect with us across various social media platforms. Just take a look at the show notes where we've listed our social media handles. Our show is brought to life by the incredibly talented and undoubtedly human Boone Ashworth. We look forward to connecting with you again next week. Until then, farewell.

[Outro music from Gadget Lab fades in]

Discover More…

Explore the realm of political seasons by subscribing to our WIRED Politics Lab newsletter and tuning into our podcast.

Unsure if breakdancing qualifies as an Olympic sport? The global champion somewhat concurs.

Investigators unlocked a decade-old encryption key for a cryptocurrency wallet valued at $3 million

The unexpected emergence of the first-ever beauty contest judged by artificial intelligence

Ease the strain on your back: Discover the top office chairs we've evaluated

Michael Calore

Lauren Goode

Lauren Goode

Simon Hill

Name: Julian Chokkattu

Simon Hill

Brenda Stolyar

Nena Farrell

WIRED DISCOUNTS

Dyson Discount Code: Save As Much As $100 On Selected Hair Care Products

Enjoy Up To An Additional 45% Discount On Our June Sale

Vista Print Discount Code: Save 20% on Certain Signs

Discount Code for Newegg: Save 10%

Subscribe to Peacock Premium for just $49.99 a year, equivalent to $4 a month.

Discover the Educational Discounts and Offers for Students from DJI in 2024

Additional Content from WIRED

Evaluations and Instructions

© 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED might receive a share of revenue from items bought via our website, thanks to our Affiliate Partnerships with retail stores. Reproducing, distributing, transmitting, storing, or using the content from this site in any way is prohibited without the explicit written consent of Condé Nast. Advertisement Choices

Choose a global website