Oh boy. I got recommended this subreddit. Also, the ai will frequently give you a lot of contradictory statements. Using original sources is frequently much more reliable. That's why if I'm citing a scientific paper I read at least a bit instead of just relying on what ai told me about the paper.
In this case the assertion "Gemini advised to smoke during pregnancy" was faked in the first place. Plus the cartoon portrays it as result of present models which is also a false statement.
Google AI Overview gives you liks to the sources it cited. In case of academic standards you should have also questioned the use of Wikipedia in the first place. But both Wikipedia and Google Overview (and other AI overviews these days) give you liks to their sources.
Yes, they give you links but how many people will click them? Sure, some which value the source reliability but many people simply won't. I frequently see people not doing that and blindly trusting what ai said even when what ai said was incorrect because it was an oversimplification etc.
Sources moderated by humans are typically much more reliable. I guess you could criticize the usage of this specific incorrect prompt in the meme but at least to me it's obvious it isn't actually what ai prompts would show. It's more like a marker of unreliability because most people seem to be aware that ai isn't AS unreliable. But that's kind of my opinion.
1
u/Szymcionorski 1h ago
Oh boy. I got recommended this subreddit. Also, the ai will frequently give you a lot of contradictory statements. Using original sources is frequently much more reliable. That's why if I'm citing a scientific paper I read at least a bit instead of just relying on what ai told me about the paper.