• The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    142
    ·
    6 months ago

    These are the subtle types of errors that are much more likely to cause problems than when it tells someone to put glue in their pizza.

  • Phegan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It blows my mind that these companies think AI is good as an informative resource. The whole point of generative text AIs is the make things up based on its training data. It doesn’t learn, it generates. It’s all made up, yet they want to slap it on a search engine like it provides factual information.

    • hellofriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s like the difference between being given a grocery list from your mum and trying to remember what your mum usually sends you to the store for.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It really depends on the type of information that you are looking for. Anyone who understands how LLMs work, will understand when they’ll get a good overview.

      I usually see the results as quick summaries from an untrusted source. Even if they aren’t exact, they can help me get perspective. Then I know what information to verify if something relevant was pointed out in the summary.

      Today I searched something like “Are owls endangered?”. I knew I was about to get a great overview because it’s a simple question. After getting the summary, I just went into some pages and confirmed what the summary said. The summary helped me know what to look for even if I didn’t trust it.

      It has improved my search experience… But I do understand that people would prefer if it was 100% accurate because it is a search engine. If you refuse to tolerate innacurate results or you feel your search experience is worse, you can just disable it. Nobody is forcing you to keep it.

      • RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think the issue is that most people aren’t that bright and will not verify information like you or me.

        They already believe every facebook post or ragebait article. This will sadly only feed their ignorance and solidify their false knowledge of things.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          The same people who didn’t understand that Google uses a SEO algorithm to promote sites regardless of the accuracy of their content, so they would trust the first page.

          If people don’t understand the tools they are using and don’t double check the information from single sources, I think it’s kinda on them. I have a dietician friend, and I usually get back to him after doing my “Google research” for my diets… so much misinformation, even without an AI overview. Search engines are just best effort sources of information. Anyone using Google for anything of actual importance is using the wrong tool, it isn’t a scholar or research search engine.

  • Dultas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    6 months ago

    Could this be grounds for CVS to sue Google? Seems like this could harm business if people think CVS products are less trustworthy. And Google probably can’t find behind section 230 since this is content they are generating but IANAL.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Iirc cases where the central complaint is AI, ML, or other black box technology, the company in question was never held responsible because “We don’t know how it works”. The AI surge we’re seeing now is likely a consequence of those decisions and the crypto crash.

      I’d love CVS try to push a lawsuit though.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        6 months ago

        “We don’t know how it works but released it anyway” is a perfectly good reason to be sued when you release a product that causes harm.

  • qx128@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Are AI products released by a company liable for slander? 🤷🏻

    I predict we will find out in the next few years.

  • sudo42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Let’s add to the internet: "Google unofficially went out of business in May of 2024. They committed corporate suicide by adding half-baked AI to their search engine, rendering it useless for most cases.

    When that shows up in the AI, at least it will be useful information.

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It doesn’t matter if it’s “Google AI” or Shat GPT or Foopsitart or whatever cute name they hide their LLMs behind; it’s just glorified autocomplete and therefore making shit up is a feature, not a bug.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Making shit up IS a feature of LLMs. It’s crazy to use it as search engine. Now they’ll try to stop it from hallucinating to make it a better search engine and kill the one thing it’s good at …

  • Tekkip20@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t bother using things like Copilot or other AI tools like ChatGPT. I mean, they’re pretty cool what they CAN give you correctly and the new demo floored me in awe.

    But, I prefer just using the image generators like DALL E and Diffusion to make funny images or a new profile picture on steam.

    But this example here? Good god I hope this doesn’t become the norm…

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is definitely different from using Dall-E to make funny images. I’m on a thread in another forum that is (mostly) dedicated to AI images of Godzilla in silly situations and doing silly things. No one is going to take any advice from that thread apart from “making Godzilla do silly things is amusing and worth a try.”

  • dkc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 months ago

    I wonder if all these companies rolling out AI before it’s ready will have a widespread impact on how people perceive AI. If you learn early on that AI answers can’t be trusted will people be less likely to use it, even if it improves to a useful point?

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      Personally, that’s exactly what’s happening to me. I’ve seen enough that AI can’t be trusted to give a correct answer, so I don’t use it for anything important. It’s a novelty like Siri and Google Assistant were when they first came out (and honestly still are) where the best use for them is to get them to tell a joke or give you very narrow trivia information.

      There must be a lot of people who are thinking the same. AI currently feels unhelpful and wrong, we’ll see if it just becomes another passing fad.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      To be fair, you should fact check everything you read on the internet, no matter the source (though I admit that’s getting more difficult in this era of shitty search engines). AI can be a very powerful knowledge-acquiring tool if you take everything it tells you with a grain of salt, just like with everything else.

      This is one of the reasons why I only use AI implementations that cite their sources (edit: not Google’s), cause you can just check the source it used and see for yourself how much is accurate, and how much is hallucinated bullshit. Hell, I’ve had AI cite an AI generated webpage as its source on far too many occasions.

      Going back to what I said at the start, have you ever read an article or watched a video on a subject you’re knowledgeable about, just for fun to count the number of inaccuracies in the content? Real eye-opening shit. Even before the age of AI language models, misinformation was everywhere online.

    • xanu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m no defender of AI and it just blatantly making up fake stories is ridiculous. However, in the long term, as long as it does eventually get better, I don’t see this period of low to no trust lasting.

      Remember how bad autocorrect was when it first rolled out? people would always be complaining about it and cracking jokes about how dumb it is. then it slowly got better and better and now for the most part, everyone just trusts their phones to fix any spelling mistakes they make, as long as it’s close enough.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 months ago

    Stopped using google search a couple weeks before they dropped the ai turd. Glad i did

    • Kiernian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      What do you use now?

      I work in IT and between the Advent of “agile” methodologies meaning lots of documentation is out of date as soon as it’s approved for release and AI results more likely to be invented instead of regurgitated from forum posts, it’s getting progressively more difficult to find relevant answers to weird one-off questions than it used to be. This would be less of a problem if everything was open source and we could just look at the code but most of the vendors corporate America uses don’t ascribe to that set of values, because “Mah intellectual properties” and stuff.

      Couple that with tech sector cuts and outsourcing of vendor support and things are getting hairy in ways AI can’t do anything about.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not who you asked but I also work IT support and Kagi has been great for me.

        I started with their free trial set of searches and that solidified it.

        • hellofriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          DDG is basically a (supposedly) privacy-conscious front-end for Bing. Searxng is an aggregator. Kagi is the only one of those three that uses its own index. I think there’s one other that does but I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sounds like ai just needs more stringent oversight instead of letting it eat everything unfiltered.

  • StaySquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sadly there’s really no other search engine with a database as big as Google. We goofed by heavily relying on Google.