The DOI matches its DataCite record.
The Rise of AI Search: Implications for Information Markets and Human Judgement at Scale
Open accessAbstract
We executed 24,000 search queries in 243 countries, generating 2.8 million AI and traditional search results in 2024 and 2025. We found a rapid global expansion of AI search and key trends that reflect important, previously hidden, policy decisions by AI companies that impact human exposure to AI search worldwide. From 2024 to 2025, overall exposure to Google AI Overviews (AIO) expanded from 7 to 229 countries, with surprising exclusions like France, Turkey, China and Cuba, which do not receive AI search results, even today. While only 1% of Covid search queries were answered by AI in 2024, over 66% of Covid queries were answered by AI in 2025 -- a 5600% increase signaling a clear policy shift on this critical health topic. Our results also show AI search surfaces significantly fewer long tail information sources, lower response variety, and significantly more low credibility and right- and center-leaning information sources, compared to traditional search, impacting the economic incentives to produce new information, market concentration in information production, and human judgment and decision-making at scale. The social and economic implications of these rapid changes in our information ecosystem necessitate a global debate about corporate and governmental policy related to AI search.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Audits report that AI answers draw on fewer, more central sources and produce engine-specific answer bubbles.
“audits report that AI answers draw on fewer, more central sources [1] and produce engine-specific answer bubbles [10]”
From The New Shape of Search: How Conversational AI Recomposes Information Seeking (2026) · cites this paper as [1]
The “Impacts on Judgment and the Marketplace of Ideas” section (page unavailable) reports that AI search links to top-1,000 websites more often and to long-tail websites less often than traditional search. That supports the shift toward more central sources, but the passage does not establish that AI answers draw on fewer sources overall. The separate claim about engine-specific answer bubbles is attached to citation [10], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- L. Huang, et al., A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 43 (2), 1-55 (2025), doi:10.1145/3703155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3703155. · DOI · Paper page
- Columnbia Journalism Review, How ChatGPT Search (Mis)represents Publisher Con- tent (2024), https : / / www.cjr.org / tow center / how -chatgpt -misrepresents - publisher-content.php.
- Columnbia Journalism Review, AI Search Has A Citation Problem (2025), https:// www.cjr.org/tow center/we-compared-eight-ai-search-engines-theyre-all- bad-at-citing-news.php.
- S. E. Spatharioti, D. Rothschild, D. G. Goldstein, J. M. Hofman, Effects of LLM-based Search on Decision Making: Speed, Accuracy, and Overreliance, in Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '25 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA) (2025), doi:10.1145/3706598.3714082, https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3706598.3714082. · DOI · Paper page
- N. Sharma, Q. V. Liao, Z. Xiao, Generative Echo Chamber? Effect of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking, in Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '24 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA) (2024), doi:10.1145/3613904.3642459, https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3613904.3642459. · DOI · Paper page
- H. Li, S. Aral, Human Trust in AI Search: A Large-Scale Experiment (2025), https:// arxiv.org/abs/2504.06435. · arXiv
- M. Potthast, M. Hagen, B. Stein, The dilemma of the direct answer. SIGIR Forum 54 (1) (2021), doi:10.1145/3451964.3451978, https://doi.org/10.1145/3451964.3451978. · DOI
- K. Wu, et al., An automated framework for assessing how well LLMs cite relevant medical references. Nature Communications 16 (1), 3615 (2025).
- Z. Tan, et al., Large Language Models for Data Annotation and Synthesis: A Survey (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13446. · arXiv
- F. Gilardi, M. Alizadeh, M. Kubli, ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text- annotation tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (30), e2305016120 (2023), doi:10.1073 / pnas.2305016120, https : / / www.pnas.org / doi / abs / 10.1073 / pnas.2305016120. · DOI · Paper page
- N. Reimers, I. Gurevych, Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks, in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Association for Computational Linguistics) (2019), http://arxiv.org/abs/ 1908.10084.
- S. Aral, P. S. Dhillon, What (exactly) is novelty in networks? Unpacking the vision advantages of brokers, bridges, and weak ties. Management Science 69 (2), 1092-1115 (2023).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The New Shape of Search: How Conversational AI Recomposes Information Seeking
Iannelli, M., & Ai, A. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.04282 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Aral, S., Li, H., & Zuo, R.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.13415
- OpenAlex
- W7129212488
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- AI search, Google AI Overviews, search engine results, information market, human judgment, source credibility, market concentration, AI policy, COVID-19 information
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
