A recent viral X thread by investor Chris Camillo has stirred up a sharp debate in the tech and investor communities. He claims that Google’s reported search growth is artificially inflated by AI-generated queries, possibly from tools like ChatGPT, rather than actual human activity.
It’s a provocative idea, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
As someone who’s spent years managing millions in paid search, I’ve seen firsthand how AI is feeding search rather than replacing it. Let’s break down why.
The Claims: Is Google Masking a Decline in Human Search?
Camillo, who is notably short on $GOOGL, alleges that:
- Google’s reported 12% YoY growth in search revenue may be misleading.
- Safari searches are down for the first time in 22 years, possibly due to AI.
- Google Trends is surfacing queries that appear to be seeded by bots.
- Advertisers could be paying for AI-generated clicks unknowingly.
He’s calling for more transparency, and on that point, but the data suggests a very different story: AI is acting as an accelerant to search, not a replacement.
What’s Really Happening: AI Is a Top-of-Funnel Catalyst
AI tools like ChatGPT are now part of the consumer discovery journey, but they rarely complete it. Here’s how the real flow works:
- Users ask AI a broad question (e.g., “What are the best running shoes?”).
- AI gives brand suggestions, often sourced from third-party content.
- The user heads to Google, searching for a brand name like “Asics Gel Kayano review” or “Nike Vaporfly sale.”
This is real human behavior, driven by AI, but very much human in execution. We’ve seen it reflected in performance: branded search clicks are up, not down. Conversion rates remain strong. If fake traffic were involved, we’d be seeing a measurable dip. We’re not.
Google Trends ≠ Actual Search Volume
Camillo cites odd spikes in Google Trends as evidence of AI interference, but Trends data is normalized and doesn’t represent raw query counts. It also filters out spam and low-volume terms.
Google’s earnings figures are based on monetizable, high-quality queries that meet strict advertiser standards. Conflating the two is a false equivalence.
The Conspiracy Doesn’t Add Up
The idea that Google would risk its entire revenue model and draw antitrust scrutiny by slipping in invalid AI clicks feels far-fetched.
- Technically, Google already filters bot traffic from billable clicks via tools like reCAPTCHA.
- Financially, the company would face class-action lawsuits and regulatory fire if discovered.
- Reputationally, in today’s climate of intense scrutiny, there’s too much to lose.
More importantly, real-world ad performance across our agency clients remains stable and strong. There are no signs of inflated, non-human traffic.
What Brands and Investors Should Be Watching
The concern over AI’s role in search is valid, but let’s look at it through the right lens.
- Marketers: Track branded vs. non-branded search in your GA dashboards.
- Investors: Look at ad performance data before assuming AI is hurting Google.
- Everyone: Keep pushing for more transparency from Google on AI traffic classifications.
AI is changing behavior, but it’s not cannibalizing Google. It’s feeding it with high-intent users who are closer to conversion than ever before.
Transparency Matters, but Let’s Stay Grounded
Camillo’s thread raises an important point about the need for transparency, but let’s not confuse a hypothesis with hard evidence.
Until proven otherwise, the data points to complementarity, not conspiracy.
And if you’re still worried? Talk to us – we run the tests every day.
Disclosure: I hold $GOOGL stock.
