I’ve written a lot about AI lately, and I’ll admit, most of it is critical. Plenty of you have asked me why I’m so down on the sector. The crux of it is this: I think we’re approaching AI without considering history’s lessons, and because of that we’re failing to ask the questions that will matter as the technology becomes inextricably embedded in our culture.
Perhaps the most important question is metaphorical – what’s the best metaphor for how we interact with AI? We’ve got plenty of examples to chose from. Will our interactions with AI end up being like the PC – a personal device that we own and control? Or will it instead end up like social media or search (or worse, television) – a centralized service that is owned and controlled by large corporations?
As generative AI took root over the past few years, I’ve been watching the early returns, and they’re not encouraging. We’re barreling down the “AI as a service” road, oblivious to the tradeoffs we’re making along the way. If AI is indeed the most significant technological breakthrough of our lifetime, do we really want to adopt it into our lives under the same big tech business model that gave us Instagram, TikTok, Amazon, and the gig economy?
Just yesterday brought yet another story about how big tech’s approach to AI constrains our choices. In “Amazon Locks Down Against Google’s AI Shopping Agents,” The Information reports:
In recent weeks, Amazon updated the code underpinning its website to add language warding off new AI agents from Google. These changes follow restrictions Amazon added earlier this year calling out bots from Perplexity, Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
The story continues in an almost apologetic tone, explaining that Amazon doesn’t want AI agents crawling its site because it “could see a big drop in the number of people browsing their sites directly.” That, in turn, could derail Amazon’s $60 billion advertising business.
True, but left unsaid is the even larger impact that personalized AI agents (I call them “genies“) might have on Amazon’s business should they have access to Amazon’s platform. Truly personalized agents that work only for one individual would effortlessly compare Amazon’s pricing and delivery options across the web, perhaps finding a better deal at Walmart, Shopify, or a small third-party vendor eager to break into the market.
Amazon doesn’t want anybody – or anything – undermining its dominant position in online commerce, so it’s enforcing a “no AI agent” policy across the board. But let’s call it what it is: Amazon is refusing to compete. And while using market power to stifle competition might be par for the course amongst big tech players, what we’re forgetting is how these policies lock out innovation as new market dynamics are in play.
If large tech companies like Amazon refuse to honor requests from third-party AI agents, consumers are left no choice but to rely on AI that’s been “approved” by Amazon. That’s a model built not for consumers, but for the profits of established players.
As I wrote more than two years ago:
The key to genies is that they work for you. If you have a choice between having your own health care genie coded by genius Valley hackers on a mission to keep you healthy (and not broke), or using the one provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem Empire Incorporated and given the stamp of approval by Apple or OpenAI, which one would you want to use?!
Do you trust Amazon, OpenAI, Apple, Meta, or Google to give you the best deal possible? If you do, then this AI revolution is turning out exactly how you wanted it to.
—