13 ms·
Google says AI generated content is against guidelines
- mensetmanusman 5y agoIn theory GTP-3 could fill the entire internet with approximately true but false information. Wikipedia, comment boxes, blogs, Wordpress, everything. When the percentage of human generated content approaches 0.0000%, what does that internet look like?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> In theory GTP-3 could fill the entire internet with approximately true but false information. Much of the internet is currently full of not-even-approximately true (and often maliciously false) information, so I’m not particular worried about that.
- babyshake 5y agoWe will likely find out. And it may happen in a way that is fast enough to be very disorienting.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago> approximately true but false > When the percentage of human generated content approaches 0.0000%, what does that internet look like? ...approximately the same, but less false :)
- EarlKing 5y agoA bot would say that.
- ajsnigrutin 5y agoAre you accusing me of being a bot?! This is a lie, i sw <NUL> <NUL> Segmentation fault
- josefx 5y agoGiven that the AI are trained on human generated content to be human like without having understanding of the content, I would think approximately the same but even less correct.
- hprotagonist 5y agoThis is a minor plot-point in Anathem.
- WithinReason 5y ago"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
- imranq 5y agoSo your post was generated by a bot? And I suppose this reply was also generated by a bot? Its bots all the way down
- ChrisGranger 5y agoIt's a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference.
- EarlKing 5y ago"It's turtles all the way down." In the process of remembering that little tidibt it reminded me of a short story I read once that was circulated without attribution for a few decades, i.e. Terry Bissom's "They're Made Out of Meat"[1] published in OMNI in 1990. "They're meat all the way through." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190501130711/http://www.terrybisson.com/theyre-made-out-of-meat-2/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190501130711/http://www.terryb...
- amelius 5y agoAnd how would GPT-3 evolve when it starts feeding on its own output?
- Hayarotle 5y agoAbove a certain percentage it's going to poison human-generated content too. You will have to discern between ai-generated content, ai-influenced-human generated content and genuine human-generated content. One could argue it's already happening. How many of the people we talk to everyday get their facts from SEO-spam websites and Google instant answers (which often sources its content from such websites)? Even if we avoid AI-generated content, we might be gettting fed it by proxy.
- ganzuul 5y agoHuman filtering of AI creativity might work, but deepfakes mismatch with that. Personally I decided to make it a pattern that I unsubscribe from channels that use deepfakes since I saw Internet Historian using it and possibly adding to the already crippling confusion regarding UAPs. - IH is not a credible source anyway, but you can easily use the clips they produced without attribution. I think the world will be a better place if everybody follows a similar pattern. The only reason to use deepfakes is if the victim who's identity is being stolen is not cooperating with you. - It's a new way to violate a person's integrity and their right to agency in our already fading grasp of reality. You could probably gaslight your girlfriend with it, if you are incomprehensibly evil.
- DaltonCoffee 5y ago>You could probably gaslight your girlfriend with it, if you are incomprehensibly evil. I'm honestly a bit more concerned with people gaslighting courts. The technology isn't going away, unfortunately. Society will have to adapt to these new invasive norms, as they already have time and again in the past.
- EarlKing 5y agoExactly like the one we have now: A cacophonous cesspit filled with the mental diarrhea of a million bots sharting their opinions into the void in a desperate bid to either sway your opinion to their cause (whether commerce or politics), or bury you under such an avalanche of bullshit that you remain paralyzed with indecision. And the result of this? Genuine conversation progressively retreats from the internet at large as it becomes overrun with the intellectual flatus of the bot wars, and people move further and further into silos in which bot behavior can be spotted and eliminated. Welcome to the future. How do you like it, gentlemen? All your posts are belong to us.
- mjburgess 5y agoWe find ways to route around it. You're presently using one.
- EarlKing 5y agoReread the second paragraph. We're in agreement.
- eslaught 5y agoReally? I think HN has even fewer safeguards against AI-generated content than Google. No offense to dang and co., and I'm sure there's more going on there than I'm aware of. But still, I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to set up an account and use GPT-3 to produce the content. The only reason I'd suspect this isn't happening is because there isn't a strong financial incentive to do so. In other words, HN avoids the spam because it's still too small to matter.
- gus_massa 5y agoThey will be downvoted into Oblidon. And then banned, shadow-banned, hell-banned and a few more creative ways of banning. The account, the IP, the site, and perhaps anyone that a bayesian filter put in the same bucket.
- 5y ago
- BlueTemplar 5y agoFor the Web, we'll just go back to webrings and directly sharing links with people we know to be real ? (Another risk might be governments-enforced identification, no more pseudonymity !)
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y agoWe'll go back to invite-only forums.
- im3w1l 5y agoThat's basically my mental model of the internet already. An ocean of shit with a few rare islands of quality.
- ocdtrekkie 5y agoOh the irony. The company that lets AI determine what it thinks is factual says using AI to generate content is bad.
- hidroto 5y agoperhaps they don't want the datasets that they use to train the AI to be watered down by other AI generated content. after all alot of the text data was sourced from the internet.
- thorum 5y agoIf I'm understanding the quoted interview correctly, Google is talking about AI generated spam - like when you ask GPT-3 to write you an article about XYZ topic and it spits out 500 words of well-written, plausible sounding gibberish - that you throw up on your website to try to rank in the search engines. However, they seem to be leaving open the possibility of AI-assisted writing, where a human comes up with the information and guides the AI as it puts that information into words. > From our recommendation we still see it as automatically generated content. I think over time maybe this is something that will evolve in that it will become more of a tool for people. Kind of like you would use machine translation as a basis for creating a translated version of a website, but you still work through it manually. > And maybe over time these AI tools will evolve in that direction that you use them to be more efficient in your writing or to make sure that you’re writing in a proper way like the spelling and the grammar checking tools, which are also based on machine learning. But I don’t know what the future brings there. In my opinion GPT-3 has already reached the point of being useful for this purpose - there are several GPT-3 based apps that do exactly what he's describing.
- amelius 5y agoI'm glad that I'm not one of the human moderators having to read GPT-3 gibberish on a daily basis.
- uuyi 5y agoI was a moderator for a large Internet forum. GPT-3 is far more coherent than a lot of humans.
- DonHopkins 5y agoIf it's simply a quality issue, then at the point that AI generated content becomes better than human generated content, will Google ban human generated content?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Animats 5y agoMost of the content Google generates is either AI-generated or plagarized.
- sva_ 5y agoSo Google would need to build a discriminator that detects machine-generated content. It will be interesting to see these discriminators fight the generators of other big companies. I'll be taking a front-seat row watching that show, if it happens. Perhaps in the future, we'll have to deal with discriminators that approximate some originality-index. Will be fun fighting with those algorithms, to interact with the internet as a normal user (to some extent we already do - proving that you're human is becoming more and more tedious.)
- ganzuul 5y agoYou need to be computationally irreducible through self-attention and conscious self-interaction. By the same criterion we may need to consider the Wattage cost of intelligence when granting rights to AI. Their kernels needs to be aligned with evolutionary wisdom encoded in our highest motivations.
- notahacker 5y agoIn practice I think it's more Google now has another policy reason to banhammer prolific and irritating blogspammers than an arms race Google has a chance in. Google isn't yet effective at detecting blogspam generated by naive scripts that simply swap words in the source material for other words in a thesaurus. I don't think they're going to start picking up continuity errors, factual errors or "weirdness" in GPT-3 - which often satisfies human readers - any time soon.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
- peterisza 5y agoThey want to use the internet to train their models. AI generated text would contaminate the training data.
- asar 5y agoIs this even technically possible? To me, this reads like an empty threat.
- ganzuul 5y agoHey would you mind solving some captchas? Nothing personal, just a little paranoid.
- asar 5y agoGreat point! I think with captchas, some humans might be able to identify obviously made up facts and very poor sentence structure to tag a text as low quality. But I don't think you'd be able to give a reliable assessment on whether a text was AI generated or not. Especially if it's a random group of people (unfamiliar with modern content generation) filling out the captchas.
- ganzuul 5y agoCaptchas can be made adversarial. Not sure if it's a good idea to try that with text since we don't know how humans react. Maybe that's what the Phenomenon is about?
- sumoboy 5y agoSo it's ok for google to generate <title> tags, google ad headlines, and email assistance with AI while new agencies for awhile robo generate articles, the real issue is google knows this is gaming seo and they will struggle against this which will only get better.
- dchftcs 5y agoTo give them to benefit of doubt, perhaps they didn't do much about it because they don't want to ban SEO sites and be accused of outright anticompetitive practices. Then they decided "AI-generated content" is a hammer that's more palatable to antitrust regulator.
- Shadonototra 5y agoit is very important to cover the legal aspect of such thing now otherwise some dumb people will want ai generated content to be allowed everywhere i'm pretty sure they are doing their move now because it causes them ton of issues with YouTube allowing ai generated content, would mean allowing ai generated comments on youtube, wich is already happening and causes lot of issues if you can't tell what is AI generated and use comments/discussions/like/dislike in your algorithms for ranking videos, then it'll be very easy for 3rd parties to push and play the game, including ad revenue the inevitable will come sooner rather than later, get ready for your online passport!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 5y agoCan’t wait to be delisted from Google over a false positive with zero recourse.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mkl95 5y agoThat AI generated content is automated SEO, which is mostly a bunch of heuristics to please Google's ranking algorithms. Blame the algorithms, not the people who reverse engineer them.
- admax88qqq 5y agoWhy blame the algorithms rather than the spammers who reverse engineer them to get their affiliate link littered ai generated "reviews" to the top of the search results. In the arms race between Google and spammers, honest websites sometimes get caught in the crossfire. For some reason lately lots of people want to blame google for this and not the spammers.
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoI can't see any other reason for spam clone farms to outrank the sites they clone except either more incompetence then I'd ascribe to Google, or because the spam farm is full to the gunwhales with ads which earn money for Google.
- mkl95 5y agoGoogle make a large chunk of their money from ads. If you create some SaaS where users can automate their site's SEO by using GPT or whatever, and it is reasonably priced, you could end up competing with Google Ads. Google want to prevent that.
- sdoering 5y agoWhy must I'd be necessarily either/or, black/white, Google/Spammer? Why couldn't it be that reasonably both sides are to blame. Google enables the commodification of search results. Yes they claim that they want to show the best result. But best for whom? I don't believe that Google is a neutral party as they earn more if they promote sites that lead to additional advertising clicks. How should users know that there are often better results on pages 3 or 4 and below. And than there are the ones trying to make a living with minimal effort. No need to create great content. Good enough is sufficient. As long as the content is optimized and the page receives relevant traffic from search the revenue via affiliate links is secured. In this arm's race the other sites loose. They are the collateral between two fighting parties in this arms race. And also people loose. Loose great content and the diversity of the net.
- MrPatan 5y agoAI for me, not for thee?
- walrus01 5y agoMaybe this wouldn't be a problem if Google did better at distinguishing between seo stuffing content farms and actual websites.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- elliekelly 5y agoI don’t understand why Google doesn’t make an effort to do this? Aren’t these SEO “content” people a competitor, of sorts?
- bell-cot 5y agoI'd call most of them "saboteurs", not "competitors".
- phh 5y agoGoogle's market is ads. SEO "content"'s market is ads. They are definitely competing.
- cavisne 5y agoI think they would have seen this coming, they just couldn't do anything about it. The rise of social media has moved most human generated content onto a few platforms, most of whom don't let Google index them (facebook being the main one). They probably need to figure out how to pull information out of youtube (which there seem to be some initial efforts at). However they might already be in trouble there, as TikTok is growing a huge archive of 20 second answers to common queries.
- bombcar 5y agoThe websites are stuffed full of ads ... Google ads. Where's the incentive to change? They don't pay, their customers do.
- vikingerik 5y agoThey do make an effort. They're just losing the arms race.
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y agoFair enough. Google-generated content is likewise against my guidelines.
- OliverJones 5y agoNeal Stephenson's "Fall, or Dodge In Hell" has a subplot driven by a news-story-generating AI run amok. The AI uses reader engagement as the metric (along with really great natural-language stuff). But it doesn't have any truth metric. So, at the time of the book, the widely believed AI's stories have constructed an alternate reality for many people, reinforcing the present polarization of media in the US. That presents quite a threat profile. It's far more pernicious than SEO script kiddles doing whatever passes for keyword stuffing in 2022. I hope the search crawler folks at Google are working hard to detect that sort of thing and prevent it from getting into indexes. Let's hope Neal Stephenson isn't as right about that threat as Arthur C. Clarke was about geosynchronous communications satellites.
- endisneigh 5y agoCan someone describe to me a search engine that’s immune to such problems and also searches a large variety of old and new sites?
- majormajor 5y agoWe often talk about this problem as if we expect Google to solve a social and economic people problem purely through math alone. The appeal of open-to-all search as a way of navigating the web was that there was a huge long tail of interesting stuff that would be hard to manually index and categorize. If the long tail of interesting stuff has fully drowned in a sea of spam and crap, I'm not sure that it still makes that much sense over something smaller but human-curated. Perhaps the trick would be human curation with extensive and always-evolving AI tools to speed up the curation. You have to get past the filter to get in, versus being in by default unless you're blatant enough to get banned. There is a layer of human judgement in addition to the algorithm's score of the content, and additionally that gives you an extra scoring factor on the algorithms yourself - the humans should be able to help direct the development of the algorithm to fight spam more preemptively. Would a mix of that give us a bigger internet than the entirely-manual "web directory" days of 1997 or so, but a less-shit-filled one than today's?
- magicalist 5y ago> "For us these would, essentially, still fall into the category of automatically generated content which is something we’ve had in the Webmaster Guidelines since almost the beginning. > And people have been automatically generating content in lots of different ways. And for us, if you’re using machine learning tools to generate your content, it’s essentially the same as if you’re just shuffling words around, or looking up synonyms, or doing the translation tricks that people used to do. Those kind of things. > My suspicion is maybe the quality of content is a little bit better than the really old school tools, but for us it’s still automatically generated content, and that means for us it’s still against the Webmaster Guidelines. So we would consider that to be spam." So are people reacting thinking this is a new policy or...?
- Traster 5y agoI think it's difficult to marry this policy with the other stuff Google is claiming to be dramatically transformational. If Google came out and said "Hey, this self-driving stuff isn't really dissimilar from traditional driving assist." there would be some questions to answer. Which of course, is what the regulators actually say.
- ChadNauseam 5y agoThose examples seem highly different? Waymo can and does pick you up and take you where you need to go in SF and Austin, with no one behind the wheel. I'm not aware of any traditional driver assist package that's capable of even approaching that.
- hackernewds 5y ago"This is okay since it has been policy" is that same vibe as "We have to bump you off the plane because it is company policy"
- fny 5y agoThere's an interesting variant of the Turing test here: develop an AI sufficiently intelligent to distinguish human content from AI generated content. I might be wrong, but I think this might be a more difficult task than generating convincing dialogue: its very easy to generate text that statistically resembles human writing, and generators trained on certain topics (i.e. some science niche) might be impossible to flag.
- zmmmmm 5y agoyou approximately just described adversarial networks (GANs). One of their training metrics is that it is how difficult it is for the "other" network (the adversary) to train itself to distinguish the real from generated.
- ohashi 5y agoAI for me, not for thee. Google shouldn't be the arbiter of what's ok or not on the internet. They use AI to take away all human recourse with the company but want to tell others not to use it? It's a pretty laughable position. Good luck trying to detect GPT-3 and the like when you compare with non native speakers of languages. Are you suddenly going to just block them too? If an AI can generate high quality content, why is that any less than human generated content. Human generate a ton of trash content, it's not inherently better. Those same models on copilot are generating useful and often good code for me on a daily basis. If someone told me it's not OK to use any copilot generated code as unethical/wrong I'd laugh in their face. It's basically saving me a google search to find snippets/examples of things I wasn't sure of. Maybe that's the threat? If we have access to AI directly (ala copilot) then I am googling less.
- shadowgovt 5y agoThat's the point. If it is detectable, it'll get downranked for being low-quality.
- hackernewds 5y agoWhich seems fair. I do not want to be bombarded by AI generated media and content that can be created at infinite volume and speed. Google is taking a massive step here for the good.
- jimmaswell 5y agoI've seen a few AI generated pages in top results that felt like having a stroke trying to read. I hope these can be eliminated.
- derefr 5y agoI mean, I don’t know about you, but I’d be fine with an infinite stream of AI generated media… once it’s no worse than human-authored content. Which is where Google is setting the bar. If the AI can generate articles that are as good as the ones humans are writing, why not index those? Of course, this suggests a corollary: that Google shouldn’t be indexing the output of content farms where the writing and derivative-ness is strictly worse than what you’d get from an AI article generator. :)
- Trias11 5y agoIf google can randomly penalize people and businesses with no chance of recourse It's certainly good idea to penalize google with intelligent AI-generating content
- bestcoder69 5y agoSeems like there should be a carve-out for content clearly marked as AI-generated. I wonder if the SEO hit is why I haven’t been able to find too many others posting funny GPT-3 outputs like (Disclosure incoming:) mine. And if I can peddle my blog’s ‘content’: here’s Trump announcing he’s (not?) trans. > I have been so concerned about this issue, I've held back from telling you that I'm transgender. I'm not transgender, but I'm so proud of the transgender community and their rights. > The Democrats have been so horrible to the transgender community. They've made them live in these little closets, ya' know? And they've tried to force them to use certain restrooms. Love messin’ with gpt-3.
- npunt 5y agoThis internal tension between chasing AI tooling and avoiding AI-generated content is just a prelude to the bigger shift of search engines getting reinvented around generated results instead of found results. Fast forward 10+ years and for knowledge-related queries search is going to be more about generated results personalized to our level of understanding that at best quote pages, and more likely just reference them in footnotes as primary inputs. These knowledge-related queries are where most content farms, low quality blogs, and even many news sites get traffic from today. If the balance of power between offense (generating AI content) and defense (detecting AI content) continues to favor offense, there will be a strong incentive to just throw the whole thing out and go all-in on generated results. Big question is how incentives play out for the people gathering the knowledge about the world, which is the basis for generated results. Right now many/most make money with advertising, but so do content farms, and more generated results means more starving of that revenue source. For a portion of info that people want to know (e.g. factual info, not opinions, guidance, etc), Wikipedia is an alternative fact- and context-gathering model, but if search relies on it more, it will strain Wikipedia's governance model and become more of a single point of failure. Really interesting stuff ahead.
- elevaet 5y agoAt some point in this scenario you outline, there will be so much ML generated content referencing generated content, the (already muddled) primary sources will be lost in the mix and the role of ML will be forced to synthesize sensible, meaningful content out of conflicting "truth". What I'm trying to get at is that ML is currently terrible at contextualizing information, but in the future the successful knowledge-query engine will be the one that do the best job of wading through the explosion of digital content and pulling out the parts that are coherent and more connected to reality. This program will need to be able to contextualize information to form a coherent model where knowledge is interconnected into a larger model of reality. Easier said than done, we'll see if that is even possible. This is getting towards AGI.
- npunt 5y agoMy sense is a whole chunk of the internet is going to just get washed out with the tide as it gets demonetized by search, and that's the stuff most likely to be ML-generated. Meanwhile search engines like Google will start to laser in on fewer and fewer higher quality sources that have some signal, both through manual tuning and automation. I think it's important to distinguish between ML-assisted and whole cloth ML generation too. I imagine many high quality content sources are going to be using ML-assisted writing tools; for instance, at my old news company (edsurge) the journalists spent most of their time gathering info and constructing the story, which was the real meat of the work. The writing and wordsmithing was the not operating at the top of their skillset, it was pretty inefficient manual labor, especially the drafts. So from content production perspective, ML could automate a lot of that away while letting the journalists tune the narrative and edit the output for better nuance - in other words, editing vs producing. This also assumes a single output, but if you take the edtech lens and couple it with the power of ML and you could easily have any given news article have nearly infinite varieties based on reading level, language, and even past knowledge (by including or removing context). As someone interested in new mediums and innovating news, this is absolutely exciting to me. A really interesting question here is if there's an opportunity for collaboration between expert sources and search engines, such that for a given set of domain-specific queries the expert sources are in charge of fine-tuning the generated outputs. Completely agree about contextualization. The automated detection of ML (the defense part) needs to be tuned toward trying to extract and analyze claims that are being made in the content, and a lot of ML content is nonsensical, or introduces wild, novel claims that lack evidence and alignment with other sources. Some big questions for the analysis are whether those claims are corroborated by other higher quality sources, whether relevant context is included, and whether its bringing anything new to the table. In this kind of setup redundant sites will be ruthlessly demonetized by search. As you say, this also drives us in a direction toward expert systems with some probabilistic measurement of the truth of claims and completeness of context, which may also have actual experts at the controls of some of this (like above). This of course raises a lot of questions where unorthodox ideas may fit in this model. I'm not an ML nor search expert though, my experience is more on production side.
- calvcalv 5y agoWhilst they happily gulp all website text to train their LLM to provide ZERO CLICK SEARCH cutting out everyone they scraped. Sounds pretty evil to me.
- anothernewdude 5y agoAs long as they continue to give pinterest results, I don't care what they think is spam.
- ineedasername 5y agoInstead of focusing on AI generation, Google should focus on content farms in general. Those will have a different signature than non-spam AI content. There's legitimate uses for such content, the most obvious being research and artistic projects, not just content farms. Even then... A lot of financial news is written algorithmically. A peer in my Comp Ling masters program started a business that does just that, and sold it or consulted on it's use with Bloomberg, or maybe Forbes? It was more than a decade ago. That stuff was mostly mixed methods of rules & stochastic, so I'm sure it's come much further. But it's a valuable service because so much of this news really is very formulaic: "Stock $X came in at $Y earnings for quarter $Z, beating analyst target earnings of $A. This is in line with the general rally in the $B sector, following similar estimate-beating earning in stocks $C, $D, and $E." Dozens of these a day (or more) could certainly look like a content farm.
- jart 5y agoAmazes me how much HN talks about the declining quality of search results, and then in this thread weeps and wails with crocodile tears the moment Google tries to do something about it.
- vbezhenar 5y agoI don’t see much difference between GPT-generated text and so-called “copywriter”-generated text. Both are spam trash I never want to waste my time reading. Google should aim for higher standards.
- mdoms 5y agoThe biggest difference is scale.
- paulcole 5y agoWhat do you want to waste your time reading?
- Seattle3503 5y agoErotic fiction. Best time spent reading trash ever.
- IshKebab 5y agoHacker news comments!
- fatih-erikli 5y agoI think the dataset and the context very important. I don't think google will give a bad score if the content is generated by AI and it is helpful for the people.
- realPubkey 5y agoI am translating german content to swedish and back again. Google never noticed. My backtranslated content even corrects all typos and gramatical errors. It ranks better then the original content and I see no way they could ever detect.
- frankzander 5y agoInteresting. Why Swedish in particular?
- p0larboy 5y agoAre you using any AI writing tool or just accessing the openai API directly?
- cabaalis 5y agoRead this policy as "we prohibit others from doing what we ultimately will be doing, so we can prevent anyone else from taking the lead."
- aaron695 5y ago
- rndphs 5y agoThe arms race to passing the turing test has begun.
- nahuel0x 5y agoThere is also the question on what will happen when every GPT-X is trained with data who in large parts was generated by GPT-(X-1) instead of humans. Maybe to avoid that endogamy we will trace a line so they will be trained only with data created before the AI "eternal September".
- Vladimof 5y agoAt the rate Google is going, they will be able to differentiate between the two in 20 years, if they are even willing/wanting to try.
- kderbyma 5y agoGoogle can say whatever ..actions are all that matter. and Google is acting like a bribed politician....
- Ansil849 5y agoBut Google has a whole set of AI writing tools - https://experiments.withgoogle.com/collection/ai https://experiments.withgoogle.com/collection/ai So by their own definition they are producing spam?
- aasasd 5y agoAh, yes, a glimpse of the world where sites exist to placate Google into delivering some traffic, and Google is the supreme judge of whether a site gets a piece of the webs. Might be funny to see the dissonance when people begin to make decent art or memes with AIs, and Google will have to either drop the site, or ignore its own rules.
- water8 5y agoIf Google spent less time worrying about their guidelines and more time hiring people that don’t wish to turn the company into their political playground they could certainly be a lot further along than where they are
- nonfamous 5y agoThe irony here is that Google absolutely prioritizes AI-generated content when it comes from Google itself. Sure, infoboxes contain content from other websites written (usually) by humans, but the selection and excerpting process is AI-driven and there are plenty of examples of that process going spectacularly wrong. And infoboxes are usually the first result in any Google search, before the ads even.
- Hardik_Shah 5y ago