Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the open search movement through a capability-theoretic lens, arguing that the definition of "open" should focus on the capabilities it provides to users rather than the technical openness of the system itself. It draws parallels with open source and open AI movements, highlighting how powerful corporations can co-opt these movements to maintain their dominance. The authors suggest that by prioritizing user capabilities, the open search movement can better safeguard against similar challenges.
The pursuit of "open search" risks being co-opted by powerful corporations unless it shifts focus from technical openness to the actual capabilities afforded to users.
The hegemony of control over our search platforms by a few large corporations raises justifiable concerns, particularly in light of emerging geopolitical tensions and growing instances of ideological imposition by authoritarian actors to manipulate public opinion. Recent movement for promote open search has emerged in response. This follows from past and ongoing push for openness to challenge corporate oligopolies (e.g., open source and open AI models) which have seen significant ongoing negotiations and renegotiations to establish standards around what constitutes being open. These tensions have hindered these movements from effectively challenging power, in turn allowing powerful corporations to neutralize or co-opt these movements to further entrench their dominance. We argue that the push for open search will inevitably encounter similar conflicts, and should foreground these tensions to safefguard against similar challenges as these adjacent movements. In particular, we argue that the concept of open should be understood not with respect to what is being made open but through a capability-theoretic lens, in terms of the capabilities it affords to the actors the system is being opened to.
