×
Elon Musk Says Apple Is Rigging the App Store for ChatGPT

Elon Musk Says Apple Is Rigging the App Store for ChatGPT

Tech-news , , ,

Elon Musk has opened a fresh front in his ongoing feud with Big Tech.This time he’s targeting Apple.

On Monday night, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO accused the iPhone maker of antitrust violations, claiming its App Store policies put his AI chatbot Grok, developed by xAI, at a disadvantage compared to rivals, particularly OpenAI’s ChatGPT. “Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter). “xAI will take immediate legal action.”

Musk didn’t elaborate on the legal strategy or confirm whether a lawsuit is already in motion. But his public offensive had begun earlier in the evening, as if he were building a case before a jury.

“Hey @Apple App Store, why do you refuse to put either 𝕏 or Grok in your ‘Must Have’ section when 𝕏 is the #1 news app in the world and Grok is #5 among all apps?” he wrote in another post. “Are you playing politics? What gives? Inquiring minds want to know.”

A quick check by Gizmodo found that ChatGPT is currently the No. 1 free app in the U.S. iOS App Store and the only AI chatbot featured in Apple’s “Must-Have Apps” section.

Musk sees that as evidence of bias, and he’s tying it to Apple’s deeper ties with OpenAI. “And why is ChatGPT literally in every list where you have editorial control?” he added in yet another post.

Apple and OpenAI announced a partnership in June 2024 to integrate ChatGPT into iPhones, iPads, and Macs through Siri and system-wide writing tools. The deal gave OpenAI’s chatbot unprecedented visibility and direct access to hundreds of millions of Apple users.

Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 but left the company three years later after a falling-out, has since become one of its fiercest critics. His AI company, xAI, launched Grok in late 2023, branding it as an “edgy” alternative to mainstream chatbots. Grok is integrated directly into X, the social platform Musk acquired in 2022.

The spat with Apple adds to Musk’s growing list of AI-related battles,  including lawsuits, public feuds with former allies, and frequent claims that competitors are politically biased.

A New Antitrust Battleground

Musk’s threat marks the opening salvo in what could become a major new antitrust fight. Apple has long faced scrutiny and lawsuits  from developers such as Epic Games, as well as regulators in the U.S. and Europe, who argue that its iron grip on the App Store amounts to an illegal monopoly.

Now, Musk is repurposing those same arguments for the AI era. His complaint targets the core of Apple’s App Store power: the ability to anoint winners and bury rivals through editorial curation and promotion. For an upstart like xAI, being sidelined while a competitor enjoys premium placement can be fatal.

In Musk’s view, Apple’s promotion of ChatGPT is part of a cozy, potentially anti-competitive relationship with OpenAI.

Apple did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment.

Our Take

It’s Musk’s classic strong arm move. He’s done it before, yell loud enough, play the bully, and force your rival to the table. Now the question is whether Apple takes the bait or calls his bluff.



Source link
#Elon #Musk #Apple #Rigging #App #Store #ChatGPT

Tag

Related Posts


Ubisoft’s biggest franchise found itself in the perfect position to capitalize on ‘The Odyssey’ and its ongoing success.#Odyssey #Big #People #Assassins #CreedAssassin’s Creed,Christopher Nolan,The Odyssey">‘The Odyssey’ Is So Big, It’s Made People Like ‘Assassin’s Creed’ AgainUbisoft’s biggest franchise found itself in the perfect position to capitalize on ‘The Odyssey’ and its ongoing success.#Odyssey #Big #People #Assassins #CreedAssassin’s Creed,Christopher Nolan,The Odyssey

The downside of KeePassXC is that it doesn’t have official mobile clients. However, third-party apps are available for iOS and Android. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePass that offers better cross-platform support, but there are a handful of other forks available, as well.

Download the desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.

Other Password Managers We’ve Tested

Password managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.

Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.

RoboForm ($30 Per Year, $48 Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.

Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.

Password Managers to Avoid

Most password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.

ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach

#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption">The Password Managers You Should Use Instead of Your BrowserThe downside of KeePassXC is that it doesn’t have official mobile clients. However, third-party apps are available for iOS and Android. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePass that offers better cross-platform support, but there are a handful of other forks available, as well.Download the desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.Other Password Managers We’ve TestedPassword managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.RoboForm ( Per Year, Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.Password Managers to AvoidMost password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption

desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.

Other Password Managers We’ve Tested

Password managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.

Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.

RoboForm ($30 Per Year, $48 Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.

Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.

Password Managers to Avoid

Most password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.

ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach

#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption">The Password Managers You Should Use Instead of Your Browser

The downside of KeePassXC is that it doesn’t have official mobile clients. However, third-party apps are available for iOS and Android. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePass that offers better cross-platform support, but there are a handful of other forks available, as well.

Download the desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.

Other Password Managers We’ve Tested

Password managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.

Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.

RoboForm ($30 Per Year, $48 Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.

Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.

Password Managers to Avoid

Most password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.

ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach

#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption

Snapchat is officially joining the race to clean AI slop out of social media.

The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”

The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators.

SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users

The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.

“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.

It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.

Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits.

Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”

Social platforms are reconsidering AI slop

Snapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.

LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.

LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.

Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.

TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.

Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.

In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.

Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.

Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans.

Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat

#Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations">Snapchat bans fully AI-generated videos from Spotlight recommendations Snapchat is officially joining the race to clean AI slop out of social media.The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators. SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits. Mashable Trend Report Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”Social platforms are reconsidering AI slopSnapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance. YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans. Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat #Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations

AI slop out of social media.

The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”

The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators.

SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users

The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.

“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.

It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.

Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits.

Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”

Social platforms are reconsidering AI slop

Snapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.

LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.

LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.

Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.

TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.

Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.

In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.

Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.

Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans.

Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat

#Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations">Snapchat bans fully AI-generated videos from Spotlight recommendations

Snapchat is officially joining the race to clean AI slop out of social media.

The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”

The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators.

SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users

The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.

“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.

It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.

Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits.

Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”

Social platforms are reconsidering AI slop

Snapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.

LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.

LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.

Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.

TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.

Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.

In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.

Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.

Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans.

Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat

#Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations

Post Comment