Why You Should Change Your Default Search Engine

Why You Should Change Your Default Search Engine
TT
20

Why You Should Change Your Default Search Engine

Why You Should Change Your Default Search Engine

Google might be stunting your online experience. Today, 75% of desktop and laptop searches pass through the world’s most popular search engine. Google’s next closest competitor, the Chinese search giant Baidu, accounts for just 12%.

Like compasses, search engines are useful tools, guiding us through the oceans of online information. But unlike compasses, they are often dynamic and personalized. Search engines gather data and learn from each input. While that customized aspect makes our searches more efficient, it can subtly undermine our autonomy.

“[W]hen you search, you expect unbiased results, but that’s not what you get on Google,” Gabriel Weinberg, founder of DuckDuckGo, a privacy-focused search engine, writes on Quora. “On Google, you get results tailored to what they think you’re likely to click on, based on the data profile they’ve built on you over time.”

On the surface, that may seem innocuous. But if our options are algorithmically curated, that removes our choice and diminishes our exposure to challenging viewpoints. Weinberg believes filtered searches engines like Google create echo chambers and further polarize society. Through clicks, we construct our own barriers, and eventually, we might become too blind to know they exist.

Alternative search engines like DuckDuckGo and Qwant—a French company—are growing in popularity. Because these tools don’t track users, they are less precise than Google, but they help users avoid “filter bubbles” that limit what they see. DuckDuckGo recently surpassed 35 million daily direct search queries. Google, meanwhile, processes 5.5 billion searches per day. Obviously, that’s a massive gap, but the market for privacy-preserving search is growing worldwide.

Google’s advertising machine is another reason to consider other search engines. By studying our search behavior, products are promoted to us by advertisers who have a direct line to our most intimate thoughts and desires. Our online profiles are caricatures of our true selves, but in a very real way, our searches can shape who we become. Advertisers are interjecting themselves, almost invisibly, into this information exchange.

We often treat Google like our personal encyclopedia. The search engine’s sleek design can make us forget that it’s not a private getaway or even an extension of ourselves. Alternative search engines, though, do not fit seamlessly into our digital lives. That honesty is refreshing and it helps remind a person of the physical-digital divide.

If changing your default search engine seems too inconvenient, you can opt out of Google’s personalization, revoking access to search and location histories. Although it’s a mild annoyance, it can help us acknowledge the blinders Google has erected around our queries.

About six months ago, I created a new Google account, so my username would sound more professional. As I used the new profile, I was amazed by how little Google knew about the “new” me. YouTube had forgotten my love of basketball and ice hockey highlights. Instead, I saw recommendations for Vine compilations and prank videos. On search, I no longer saw advertisements for cryptocurrency conferences. Making a new profile showed me that I could recreate myself and have an entirely different online experience. That was unsettling, but eye-opening.

By changing your privacy and advertising settings, you can climb out of Google’s digital silo to encounter the real and unfiltered world. It might require more effort to find what you’re looking for—but at least you’ll know that you’re doing it on your own terms.

(Quartz)
(Tribune Media)



Justice at Stake as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom

Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
TT
20

Justice at Stake as Generative AI Enters the Courtroom

Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP
Generative artificial intelligence has been used in the US legal system by judges performing research, lawyers filing appeals and parties involved in cases who wanted help expressing themselves in court. Jefferson Siegel / POOL/AFP

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is making its way into courts despite early stumbles, raising questions about how it will influence the legal system and justice itself.

Judges use the technology for research, lawyers utilize it for appeals and parties involved in cases have relied on GenAI to help express themselves in court.

"It's probably used more than people expect," said Daniel Linna, a professor at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, about GenAI in the US legal system.

"Judges don't necessarily raise their hand and talk about this to a whole room of judges, but I have people who come to me afterward and say they are experimenting with it”.

In one prominent instance, GenAI enabled murder victim Chris Pelkey to address an Arizona courtroom -- in the form of a video avatar -- at the sentencing of the man convicted of shooting him dead in 2021 during a clash between motorists.

"I believe in forgiveness," said a digital proxy of Pelkey created by his sister, Stacey Wales.

The judge voiced appreciation for the avatar, saying it seemed authentic.

"I knew it would be powerful," Wales told , "that that it would humanize Chris in the eyes of the judge."

The AI testimony, a first of its kind, ended the sentencing hearing at which Wales and other members of the slain man's family spoke about the impact of the loss.

Since the hearing, examples of GenAI being used in US legal cases have multiplied.

"It is a helpful tool and it is time-saving, as long as the accuracy is confirmed," said attorney Stephen Schwartz, who practices in the northeastern state of Maine.

"Overall, it's a positive development in jurisprudence."

Schwartz described using ChatGPT as well as GenAI legal assistants, such as LexisNexis Protege and CoCounsel from Thomson Reuters, for researching case law and other tasks.

"You can't completely rely on it," Schwartz cautioned, recommending that cases proffered by GenAI be read to ensure accuracy.

"We are all aware of a horror story where AI comes up with mixed-up case things."

The technology has been the culprit behind false legal citations, far-fetched case precedents, and flat-out fabrications.

In early May, a federal judge in Los Angeles imposed $31,100 in fines and damages on two law firms for an error-riddled petition drafted with the help of GenAI, blasting it as a "collective debacle."

The tech is also being relied on by some who skip lawyers and represent themselves in court, often causing legal errors.

And as GenAI makes it easier and cheaper to draft legal complaints, courts already overburdened by caseloads could see them climb higher, said Shay Cleary of the National Center for State Courts.

"Courts need to be prepared to handle that," Cleary said.

Transformation

Law professor Linna sees the potential for GenAI to be part of the solution though, giving more people the ability to seek justice in courts made more efficient.

"We have a huge number of people who don't have access to legal services," Linna said.

"These tools can be transformative; of course we need to be thoughtful about how we integrate them."

Federal judges in the US capitol have written decisions noting their use of ChatGPT in laying out their opinions.

"Judges need to be technologically up-to-date and trained in AI," Linna said.

GenAI assistants already have the potential to influence the outcome of cases the same way a human law clerk might, reasoned the professor.

Facts or case law pointed out by GenAI might sway a judge's decision, and could be different than what a legal clerk would have come up with.

But if GenAI lives up to its potential and excels at finding the best information for judges to consider, that could make for well-grounded rulings less likely to be overturned on appeal, according to Linna.