> I'm not sure what we can do about this.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to pass a law or regulation requiring companies to be responsible for the ads shown on their sites. If, say, the NYTimes is promoting scams (they are) they should be fined or worse.

I think this is the only solution. Until then, google et al make tons of money off these scams.

I expect a decent percentage is total BS and too big to get rid of without messing with their quarterly numbers.

Of course, it would be pretty simple for google to prevent through a sort of advertiser FICO score. But they don’t, because it would make then less money.

I don't think this would have much enforceable teeth. AI is tricky enough that its not difficult to rename or call it something else, or only use "AI" for certain aspects. There are just too many ways to loophole this.

There is also way too much inertia behind it. Large corps benefit wah too much from these scams. They aren't going to cut off such a revenue stream. Our elected officials don't understand the issue enough to do it correctly.

>If, say, the NYTimes is promoting scams (they are) they should be fined or worse.

Oh yup. They heavily pushed the FTX scam for the NYT is heavily slanting democrats and SBF's mom was very active politically with the democrats. And these weren't "ads" but articles upon articles as if SBF was the second coming of Christ.

The NYT literally kept explaining SBF was a good guy and giving him a voice even after the scam got exposed.

Thankfully the judge wouldn't have any of that NYT nonsense (SBF's mom was teaching that we should "move past blame" at uni if I'm not mistaken) and SBF is roting in jail.

But nothing happened to those scam-promoters that the NYT is.

Screw that politically slanted publication promoting scams.