Forecast: AI’s Rise Will Cut Search Engine Traffic, Affecting Advertising

A new report from the research firm Gartner, has some unsettling news for search engine giants like Google and Microsoft’s Bing. It predicts that as everyday net users become more comfortable with AI tech and incorporate it into their general net habits, chatbots and other agents will lead to a drop of 25 percent in “traditional search engine volume.” The search giants will then simply be “losing market share to AI chatbots and other virtual agents.” One reason to care about this news is to remember that the search engine giants are really marketing giants. Search engines are useful, but Google makes money by selling ads that leverage data from its search engine. These ads are designed to convert to profits for the companies whose wares are being promoted. Plus placing Google ads on a website is a revenue source that many other companies rely on–perhaps best known for being used by media firms. If AI upends search, then by definition this means it will similarly upend current marketing practices. And disrupted marketing norms mean that how you think about using online systems to market your company’s products will have to change too. AI already plays a role in marketing. Chatbots are touted as having copy generating skills that can boost small companies’ public relations efforts, but the tech is also having an effect inside the marketing process itself. An example of this is Shopify’s recent AI-powered Semantic Search system, which uses AI to sniff through the text and image data of a manufacturer’s products and then dream up better search-matching terms so that they don’t miss out on matching to customers searching for a particular phrase. But this is simply using AI to improve current search-based marketing systems. AI–smart enough to steal traffic More important is the notion that AI chatbots can “steal” search engine traffic. Think of how many of the queries that you usually direct at Google-from basic stuff like “what’s 200 Farenheit in Celcius?” to more complex matters like “what’s the most recent games console made by Sony?”–could be answered by a chatbot instead. Typing those queries into ChatGPT or a system like Microsoft’s Copilot could mean they aren’t directed through Google’s labyrinthine search engine systems. There’s also a hint that future web surfing won’t be as search-centric as it is now, thanks to the novel Arc app. Arc leverages search engine results as part of its answers to user queries, but the app promises to do the boring bits of web searching for you, neatly curating the answers above more traditional search engine results. AI “agents” are another emergent form of the tech that could impact search-AI systems that’re able to go off and perform a complex sequence of tasks for you, like searching for some data and analyzing it automatically. Google, of course, is savvy regarding these trends, and last year launched its own AI search push, with its Search Generative Experience. This is an effort to add in some of the clever summarizing abilities of generative AI systems to Google’s traditional search system, saving users time they’d otherwise have spent trawling through a handful of the top search results in order to learn the actual answer to the queries they typed in. But as AI use expands, and firms like Microsoft double– and triple-down on their efforts to incorporate AI into everyone’s digital lives, the question of the role of traditional search compared to AI chatbots and similar tech remains an open one. AI will soon impact how you think about marketing your company’s products and Search Engine Optimization to bolster traffic to your website may even stop being such an important factor. So if you’re building a long-term marketing strategy right now it might be worth examining how you can leverage AI products to market your wares alongside more traditional search systems. It’s always smart to skate to where the puck is going to be versus where it currently is. BY KIT EATON @KITEATON

The Rise of Tesla’s Optimus: How AI Robots Could Reshape Manufacturing

In a bipartisan event designed to showcase U.S. manufacturing prowess on Capitol Hill, two Tesla Optimus humanoid robots seem to have stolen the show on Wednesday. Fox News described a scene where attendees were “crowding the machines as they struck various poses.” Speaking at the event, House select committee on China Chairman John Moolenaar, R-Mich., was particularly struck, he said, by the “amazing technology” on display, and how “a lot of the same technology that’s in a vehicle is used in these humanoid robots.” Moolenaar’s comments come as automaker Tesla remains in the spotlight thanks to its CEO Elon Musk’s controversial role in the Trump White House, and also as reports say the company is “leading the trend” of deploying humanoid robots in auto plants. All this leads to the big question: if robots really prove to have advantages over human workers in many manual work settings like factory floors, are the days of seeing people working in these environments truly numbered? Industry news outlet Digitimes reported that “since the second half of 2024” at least, Tesla has “increasingly emphasized AI as the core driver of its business strategy for the coming years.” The EV maker is intent on “commercializing autonomous driving software and humanoid robots.” This chimes with many previous reports concerning Musk’s interest in AI tech (via his xAI startup, chatbot “Grok” built into X, and AI’s role in self-driving Tesla cars and “robotaxis”) and with Musk’s own frequent, sometime grandiose pronouncements that Tesla’s future is really in robotics, not EVs. Humanoid robots may be a trillion-dollar market, Musk has previously said, and in mid-2024 he promised that Tesla’s Optimus robots would be used in its offices this year, with low production numbers. He expanded on that intial vow and said in 2026 high production levels would mean the robots could be sold to other companies. But Digitimes’ contention that Tesla is now leading the charge in deploying humanoid robots actually on the factory floor suggests this timeline has now been accelerated. This resonates with a few statements from Musk made mere weeks ago at an investors’ earnings call. Musk said then that the plan was now to build 10,000 Optimus machines this year. He admitted it was ambitious, but when asked about this he said “will those several thousand Optimus robots be doing useful things by the end of the year? Yes, I’m confident they will do useful things.” At the U.S. manufacturing showcase in Washington, D.C., Rep Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., a member of the House select committee on China, said that he imagined the robots would have “unbelievable applications,” Fox noted. Beyond car making, Gimenez suggested “maybe in agriculture,” because a “lot of our farmers are going out of business, can’t compete labor-wise,” but if you “get a couple of robots that can actually do very detailed farm work and drive the labor costs down, we’ll save the American farmer.” But the meeting went beyond a choreographed robot demo and veered into policy lobbying. The Associated Press reported that robot companies at the event, including Tesla, used the opportunity to push lawmakers to develop a national strategy to boost U.S. makers in an international race to develop transformational AI-powered robot tech, mainly in competition with China. But if Musk’s promise to build millions of Tesla humanoid robots comes true, or rival firms like Figure achieve success with their own humanoid machines, are we talking about a similar issue facing computer programmers at the moment, i.e. “will AI steal workers’ jobs?” It’s tricky, and the truth is nobody knows. One Reddit thread on the matter saw a commenter point out the impressive advances in robotics by companies like Tesla, and wonder “do you really think we’ll see these robots replacing human workers on [construction industry] job sites in the near future? I mean, they could handle the dangerous and repetitive tasks that come with the job, but what does that mean for us?” The replies were mainly in the negative, with one person noting “Building construction is way too unpredictable and open-ended to do with robots, no matter how many AI buzzwords you fit in,” and another saying simply “No.” But one commenter said “Yes, humanoid robots will likely replace humans in nearly every job they currently do…. eventually. Whether that time span is going to be 2 years or 200 remains to be seen.” Humanoid robots on the factory floor would have some obvious benefits. They could work 24-7-365, they don’t need vacations and wouldn’t go on strike, and the “days since last injury” ticker on the factory wall would just tick upwards forever. But the potential loss of wages for real humans is more problematic, from a social and political point of view. Jeff Cardenas, co-founder and CEO of the Texas-based humanoid robot startup Apptronik, spoke about the complexities of a robot transformation in Washington. Cardenas told the news service he sees humanoids as “having roles both practically and in capturing the imagination of the public” for robot tech, and he thinks a national strategy would promote the “education of a new generation of robotics engineers and scientists.” So, robots may well steal some people’s jobs, and soon, but that could mean other people will get jobs in designing and repairing the robots themselves. BY KIT EATON @KITEATON

Are Your Messages Really Secure? How to Use Encrypted Apps Safely

Political media were sent into a tizzy after Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, published a story on March 24 revealing that weeks earlier, he had been accidentally added to a group chat on encrypted messenger app Signal. What made this group chat remarkable was that it featured several senior officials from the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, discussing plans to bomb targets in Yemen. The incident instantly ignited fiery criticism over the Trump administration’s security practices. Former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg wrote on Threads that “from an operational security perspective, this is the highest level of fuckup imaginable.” So, what are encrypted messaging apps, when should you use them in your business, and how can you prevent screwups like this epic one from the White House? Here’s a brief guide. What are encrypted messaging apps? Encrypted messenger apps enable people to send text messages that are protected with end-to-end encryption, a process in which an outgoing message is scrambled into gibberish, sent over the internet, and then unscrambled on the recipient’s device. This process is achieved by using “keys,” which are lines of code that encrypt and decipher text; they prevent anyone other than the sender and recipient from reading messages, even the platform being used to send them. Two devices with matching keys can securely pass messages to each other. Many messaging apps offer end-to-end encryption as table stakes: Apple’s iMessage added end-to-end encryption in 2011, and WhatsApp switched to the security measure in 2016. What makes Signal unique is that it’s a nonprofit powered by an open-source protocol, funded by grants and donations. This means that, unlike 23andMe for example, there’s no risk of Signal getting acquired by a profit-seeking company. A good example of a form of smartphone-based communication that’s not end-to-end encrypted? An old-fashioned SMS text. In summary, if you want to avoid the snooping eyes of a third party, consider using an app with end-to-end encryption, like iMessage, WhatsApp, or Signal. What are the best practices for using these apps? Just because you’re using a messaging app that offers end-to-end encryption, it doesn’t mean that your conversation is totally secure. “We should all be very careful not to assume that encryption equals security,” says Matt Howard, senior vice president and chief marketing officer at data security platform Virtru, which helps enterprise clients (including the Department of Defense) control the flow of data within their organizations. Using end-to-end encryption is necessary for keeping your communications secure, he says, but it’s just the start of a healthy security strategy. The most important security measure you can take, according to Howard, is to ensure all of your devices have strong password protection and multifactor authentication. “Oftentimes, the importance of basic hygiene around passwords is overlooked,” he says, adding that poor password hygiene is a leading cause of data breaches. Howard also says that when you use end-to-end encryption services like Signal, you should be intentional about your data retention policies. Apps like Signal and Discord allow users to set messages to auto-delete after a certain period of time. But your business may want to preserve encrypted text for future records or to stay in compliance with any external vendors you may be working with. There are other common-sense steps to take too. For example, if you’re looking at your phone in a public place, all the encryption in the world isn’t going to stop someone from potentially reading your messages over your shoulder. And a screenshot from an otherwise private conversation could be shared more widely, too. One more piece of advice: Be deliberate when adding people to the conversation. When sharing sensitive information with others, Howard says, “just make sure you know the identities of the people you’re choosing to share it with—maybe double check the people who have been invited to the group chat before you hit send.” BY BEN SHERRY @BENLUCASSHERRY

Signal, WhatsApp, and iMessage: Which Messaging App Is Most Secure?

I don’t know very much about what goes into war planning, but I assume that the communications infrastructure that supports that kind of thing is a solved problem for the government. There are secure telephone and video systems, as well as Secure Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) that allow the key players to review the most sensitive information about military activities. Typically, I assume, those sorts of conversations aren’t had using consumer messaging platforms on the Secretary of Defense’s iPhone. Also, I sort of assume that the people involved are smart enough and tech-savvy enough to notice that a journalist has entered the group chat. Apparently, not. There are a lot of questions raised by what is now certainly the most infamous group chat in the world, in which the Vice President, Secretaries of Defense and State, the Director of National Intelligence, CIA Director, and National Security Advisor were messaging about plans to bomb Houthi rebels in Yemen. We know about the chat because someone accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic. One question that a lot of readers might be wondering is just how secure the most popular messaging apps are. Here’s a rundown. Signal Signal, the app in question in this case, is end-to-end encrypted (E2EE). That means that messages are sent in an encrypted format and can only be read by the recipient. At the core of its encryption is the Signal Protocol, and open source protocol that allows for public inspection. That decreases the chances of hidden vulnerabilities. Signal also uses a form of encryption that ensures that even if a session key is compromised, previous messages stay encrypted. Signal also allows the most privacy since you don’t have to link a phone number to use the service (unlike other apps on this list). It also allows for contact verification so that you can ensure that the person you’re messaging is who they say they are. In general, Signal is widely considered the most secure consumer messaging app because third-parties can verify its security claims, and the company does not have access to metadata about your conversations. iMessage If you only send messages to other iPhone users, Apple’s iMessage platform is arguably the best and most secure option. Unlike Signal, Apple’s protocol is proprietary and not open for inspection by third-party security researchers. That makes it harder to verify that it is as secure as it claims, but Apple is well known for its commitment to security and privacy. One advantage is that Apple uses a 1:1 encryption model for group chats, which means that every message is encrypted individually for each member of the group. This is technically more secure than Signal’s Sender Key method, though it means that iMessage group chats are much more limited in terms of group size (due to the resources required for all of that individual encryption). Apple also says its encryption is designed for post-quantum computing. The idea is that eventually quantum computers will be able to break encryption easily enough to read protected messages, but Apple is designing its algorithm to resist those types of future capabilities. There are, however, two main drawbacks to Apple’s messaging platform. The first is that once you start messaging anyone with an Android device, it will fall back to RCS, or, worse, SMS—neither of which are encrypted within the Messages app. RCS supports E2EE, but Apple has not implemented the ability to send encrypted messages to Android devices. The other is that if you use iCloud backup for your messages, and aren’t using Advanced Data Protection, a copy of your messages is stored on Apple’s servers. While they are encrypted at rest, the company is able to turn them over if requested by law enforcement because it retains a key. WhatsApp WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol (see above), meaning it offers a reliably secure form of protection for messages by default. One problem with WhatsApp is that, while the content of your messages may be encrypted, the metadata about the messages you send, and who you send them to, is not. That information is collected and stored by WhatsApp. Some people are also less than enthusiastic about using an app owned by Meta, which isn’t exactly known for its ability to keep its hands off of user data. It does, however, have the benefit of a massive user base, which means that there’s a good chance that the person you want to message with will be using WhatsApp. The app also has the best feature set for group messaging by far. Telegram To be clear, Telegram is not an E2EE messaging platform by default. Every regular message you send is encrypted in transit, and is encrypted as it is stored on Telegram’s servers, but that’s not the same thing as being encrypted so that only the recipient can read your message. This makes your messages vulnerable to anyone who has access to those servers. The app does allow you to create a “Secret Chat,” which is encrypted, and you can even set these to delete after a period of time. Still, if you care about protecting your text conversations, there are far better options on this list. Messenger Meta’s “other” messaging platform started rolling out E2EE last year, which should eventually put it on par with WhatsApp. The drawback here is that the rollout is happening over time, which means that not every user will immediately have it turned on by default. In addition, you might have some chats that are protected, and others that aren’t, and the average user isn’t going to know how to tell the difference. The bottom line It’s worth mentioning, however, that it does not matter how private or secure the encryption is on a messaging platform—if you include someone in a group chat and send a message to that group, they’re going to be able to read the message. Or, put another way, the problem here has nothing to do with encryption, and everything to do with human error. Most of these apps offer a secure form of E2EE for consumers, but there is no guarantee your messages will stay secret if you text them to a journalist. EXPERT OPINION BY JASON ATEN, TECH COLUMNIST @JASONATEN