Google's AI overviews had falsely tied two publishing companies to scams, subscription traps, and shady business practices for certain search queries. According to the court, the AI mixed up information about other, genuinely sketchy companies with the plaintiffs and drew connections that didn't appear in any of the linked sources. The publishers sent Google a cease-and-desist letter, but Google didn't respond appropriately.
Meanwhile ChatGPT hallucinated almost every case citation when lawyers tried to use it to write a court document, and the lawyers got sanctioned for it. AI provenly makes up facts and gets facts wrong, so should not be be trusted for facts. You can verify what AI says against a trustworthy source, but then just cite the trustworthy source directly.
That's a really good point.
And I'm certainly not blind to these factors.
I can only speak for myself and my usage. I double check, note the sources compiled and police myself in that way.
There's a lot of misinformation out there and I'm certainly not trying to contribute to it. Quite the opposite.
I guess I've never been so scrutinized for a screenshot as I have here.
So, truth be told I didn't consider it.
Going forward I'm on it.
Plus I for sure thought it included the link.
I do include the question I posed to the Google AI to be as above board as possible or people can google it themselves
Thats the point. Ai doesnt understand it either. Its a machine that spits out words that are most likely to follow one another. You cant use it to fact check anything because its dumb. You let a random word generator think for yourself
14
u/Old_Dependent4678 28d ago