Check it below!
link.springer.com/article/10.1...

...nor has incentive to do so. However, we can expect a reduction of content and providers, but not everywhere. Competitive markets and those with barriers to entry are more resilient to Google AI summaries. Why? In a recent published article, we answered this and more [2/3]

Papers on economics, AI and decision making are welcome, especially from PhD students or early career researchers.

Deadline is on May, 28. Save the date!

Competition policy that sets market power to 1980s levels would lower the stock market by 45%. The remainder, due to accumulated retained earnings (35%) and a lower risk-free rate (20%), is unaffected.

Congrats! Keep up the good work!

The statement "I personally chose the price" says a lot about the impact of our profession.

It's a financial definition that appeals to a specific public, but that's not for us. Without considering the alternatives, that threshold says little. But I understand the mindset that if a single tech can earn half of Google's profits, it should be a breakthrough (like AGI)

Thanks for the recommendation. Although it's not my arena, it's interesting nonetheless!

I also rely on the AI summary most of the time because it's useful. However, it may have other unintended consequences. If we wish to evaluate the impact of a technology, we must know its consequences, and normally the bad ones are less noticiable than the good ones. That's my thought on the SM bias

Moreover, we find that there is a relationship between the number of creators pre- and post-GenAI and the "summarization effect". We hope this and other results may help others estimate the effect of GenAI in digital markets.

Competitive markets and those with high entry costs will be less affected. However, the extent of this effect depends on the diminishing or constant returns of developers.