10 ms·
Google AI Overview made up an elaborate story about me
- blibble 1y agothe "AI" bullshitters need to be liable for this type of wilful defamation and it is wilful, they know full well it has no concept of truthfulness, yet they serve up its slop output directly into the faces of billions of people and if this makes "AI" nonviable as a business? tough shit
- gruez 1y ago[flagged]
- hayleox 1y agoThe AI summaries in Google aren't presented as wild hallucinations; they show up in an authoritative looking box as an answer to the query you just typed. The New York Times wouldn't be able to get out of libel suits by adding a tiny disclaimer to their masthead; why should it be different for Google?
- gruez 1y ago[flagged]
- atq2119 1y agoGoogle aren't advertising their search as "for entertainment purposes only" though. And even if they did, it wouldn't really matter. The way Google search is overwhelmingly used in practice, misinformation spread by it is a public hazard and needs to be treated as such.
- gruez 1y ago>Google aren't advertising their search as "for entertainment purposes only" though. So you accept that all of this is just a quibble over what the disclaimer says? Rather than "AI generated, might contain mistakes", it should just say "for entertainment purposes only" and they'll be in the clear?
- hayleox 1y agoFortune tellers typically tell you extremely vague things that are designed to trick you into interpreting them favorably; you hear what you want to hear. "Someone new will come into your life soon" or "Something exciting will happen next week" are not claims that can be disproved. They certainly don't make hyperspecific claims like "this YouTuber traveled to Israel and changed his mind about the war there, as documented in a video he posted on August 18".
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- aDyslecticCrow 1y agoYou can sue a fortune teller too if they tell people you're a sex offender and drink piss.
- gruez 1y agoAnyone can sue, but has there been a case of a fortune teller actually losing? What if there was no involvement from the fortune teller at all, like if the client asked "is my wife cheating on me", and all 3 cards drawn were in the affirmative?
- aDyslecticCrow 1y agoFortune telling is a bad strawman and you know it. Fortune tellers talk with one person, give vague advice, and may destroy a relationship at worst. If a Fortune teller published articles claiming false things about random prople, gave dangerous medical advice, claiming to be a Nigerian prince, or convinced you to put all your savings into bitcoin; the "entertainment purposes" shield dissolves quite quickly. Google makes an authorative statement on top of the worlds most used search engine, in a similar way they previously did with Wikipedia for relevant topics. The little disclaimer should not shield them from doing real tangible harm to people.
- antonvs 1y agoFortune telling for profit is illegal in several big US states and other jurisdictions, including e.g. Pennsylvania and New York, for the same kinds of reasons being discussed. It’s not ok to make things up to make a profit unless you’re doing so purely for entertainment, i.e. it’s understood that the statements are fictional. The Google disclaimer should probably be upfront and say something more like, “The following statements are fictional, provided for entertainment purposes only. Any resemblance to persons living or dead are purely coincidental.”
- const_cast 1y agoYes, people have lost libel and defamation suits. Its not like being a fortune teller means you can magically lie.
- mattbuilds 1y agoThat’s a false equivalency, sorry that some of us think companies should actually be responsible for the things they produce.
- lupusreal 1y agoGruez supports genocide. DISCLAIMER: I often make shit up!
- deepvibrations 1y agoThe law needs to stand up and make an example here, otherwise this will just continue and at some point a real disaster will occur due to AI.
- koolba 1y ago> The law needs to stand up and make an example here, otherwise this will just continue and at some point a real disaster will occur due to AI. What does it mean to “make and example”? I’m for cleaning up AI slop as much as the next natural born meat bag, but I also detest a litigious society. The types of legal action that stops this in the future would immediately be weaponized.
- recursive 1y agoWeapons against misinformation are good weapons. Bring on the weaponization.
- gruez 1y ago>Weapons against misinformation are good weapons It's all fun and games until the political winds sway the other way, and the other side are attacking your side for "misinformation".
- recursive 1y agoI'm having a hard time thinking of any winds where I would want it to be acceptable to publish false statements about a person. It doesn't seem there's even any dispute about whether the statements are false. These things can be complicated, but this is not complicated. I'm not feeling a need to rush to the defense of Google for making false statements about some guy.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Newlaptop 1y agoThe weapons will be used by the people in power. Do you want your country's current political leaders to have more weapons to suppress information they dislike or facts they disagree with? If yes, will you also be happy if your country's opposition leaders gain that power in a few years?
- jsheard 1y agoReading this I assumed it was down to the AI confusing two different Benn Jordans, but nope, the guy who actually published that video is called Ryan McBeth. How does that even happen?
- frozenlettuce 1y agoThe model that google is using to handle requests in their search page is probably dumber than the other ones for cost savings. Not sure if this would be a smart move, as search with ads is their flagship product. It would be better having no ai in search at all.
- Handprint4469 1y ago> as search with ads is their flagship product. no, ads are their flagship product. Anything else is just a medium for said ads, and therefore fair game for enshittification.
- lioeters 1y ago> better having no ai in search But then the product manager wouldn't get a promotion. They don't seem to care about providing a good service anymore. > probably dumber than the other ones for cost savings It's amusing how anyone at Google thinks offering a subpar and error-prone AI search result would not affect their reputation worse than it already is. It's making stuff up, giving bad or fatal advice, promoting false political narratives, stealing content and link juice from actual content creators. They're abusing their anti-competitively dominant position, and just burning good will like it's gonna last forever. Maybe they're too big to fail, and they no longer need reputation or the trust of the public.
- hattmall 1y agoBad information is inherently better for Google than correct information. If you get the correct information you only do one search. If you get bad, or misleading information that requires you to perform more searches that it is definitely better for Google.
- drivingmenuts 1y agoIn an ideal world, a product that can be harmful is tested privately until there is a reasonable amount of safety in using that product. With AI, it seems like that protocol has been completely discarded in favor of smoke-testing it on the public and damn the consequences. Of course, investors are throwing so much money at AI and AI is, in turn, buying legislators and heads of government, who are bound and determined to shield them from liability, so … We are so screwed.
- aejtaetj 1y agoEvery underdog will skimp on safety, especially those in other jurisdictions.
- yapyap 1y agoYikes, as expected people have started to take google AI summary as fact without doing any more research. We all knew this would happen but I imagine all hoped anyone finding something shocking there would look further into it. Of course with the current state of searching and laziness (not being rewarded by dopamine for every informative search vs big dopamine hits if you just make your mind up and continue scrolling the endless feed)
- meindnoch 1y agoIt's not Google's fault. The 6pt text at the bottom clearly says: "AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more"
- gruez 1y ago>The 6pt text at the bottom clearly says: I did inspect element and it's actually 12px (or 9pt). For context the rest of the text (non-header) is 18px. That seems fine to me? It's small to be unobtrusive, but not exactly invisible either.
- margalabargala 1y agoYou are right. It is okay to do whatever you want, as long as there is a sign stating it might happen. Especially in an area you own, like your own website or property. Want to dump toxic waste in your backyard? Just put up a sign so your neighbors know, then if they stick around it's on them, really, no right to complain. Want to brake-check the person behind you on the highway? Bumper sticker that says "this vehicle may stop unexpectedly". Wow, just like that you're legally off the hook! Want to hack someone's computer and steal all their files? Just put a disclaimer on the bottom of your website letting them know that by visiting the site they've given you permission to do so.
- gruez 1y ago>You are right. It is okay to do whatever you want, as long as there is a sign stating it might happen. Stop strawmanning. Just because I support google AI answers with a disclaimer, doesn't mean I think a disclaimer is a carte blanche to do literally anything.
- margalabargala 1y agoReading your comments in context of the thread you're on, you think the disclaimer is sufficient to do things up to and including falsely claiming public figures have opposite views to their true ones on the Israel-Gaza conflict. Considering the extent to which people have very strong opinions about "their" side in the conflict, to the point of committing violent acts especially when feeling betrayed, I don't think spreading this particular piece of disinformation is any less potentially dangerous than the things I listed.
- slightwinder 1y agoSearching for "benn jordan isreal", the first result for me is a video[0] from a different creator, with the exact same title and date. There is no mentioning of "benn" in the video, but some mentioning of jordan (the country). So maybe, this was enough for Google to hallucinate some connection. Highly concerning! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUzVZiint0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUzVZiint0
- glenstein 1y agoThat raises a fascinating point, which is whether search results that default to general topics ever are the basis for LLM training or information retrieval as a general phenomenon.
- reactordev 1y agoI think the answer is clear
- slightwinder 1y agoYes, any human will most likely recognize the result as random noise, as they will know whom they are searching for, and see this not a video from or about Benn. But AI, taking all results as valid, will obviously struggle with this, condensing it to bullshit. Thinking about, it's probably not even a real hallucination in the normal AI-meaning, but simply poor evaluation and handling of data. Gemini is likely evaluation the new data on the spot, trusting them blindly; and without any humans preselecting and writing the results, it's failing hard. Which is showing that there is no real thinking happening, only rearrangement of the given words.
- LorenPechtel 1y agoThe fundamental problem is AI has no ability to recognize data quality. You'll get something like the best answer to the question but with no regard for the quality of that answer. Humans generally recognize they're looking at red herrings, AIs don't.
- 1y ago
- nosmokewhereiam 1y agoI wish I could build the speech jammer, his coolest project. I also am an adult and understand why I can't have one.
- mindslight 1y agoOne has to wonder if one of the main innovations driving "AI" is the complete lack of accountability and even shame. Twenty years ago, we wouldn't have had companies framing the raw output of a text generator as some kind of complete product, especially an all-encompassing general one. How do you know that these probabilistic text generators are performing valid synthesis, as opposed to word salad? You don't. So LLM technology would have used to do things like augment search/retrieval, pointing to concrete sources and excerpts. Or to analyze a problem using math, drive formal models that might miss the mark but at least wouldn't be blatantly incorrect with a convincing narrative. Some actual vision of an opinionated product that wasn't just dumping the output and calling it a day. Also twenty years ago we also wouldn't have had a company placing a new beta-quality product (at best) front and center as a replacement for their already wildly successful product. But it feels like the real knack of these probabilistic word generators is convincing "product people" of their supreme utility. Of course they're worried - they found something that can bullshit better than themselves. At any rate all of those discussions about whether humans are be capable of keeping a superintelligent AI "boxed" are laughable in retrospect. We're propping open the doors and chumming other humans' lives as chunks of raw meat, trying to coax it out. (Definitely starting to feel like an old man here. But I've been yelling at Cloud for years so I guess that tracks)
- AnEro 1y agoI really hope this stays up, despite the politics involvement to a degree. I think this is a situation that is a perfect example of how AI hallucinations/lack of accuracy could significantly impact our lives going forward. A very nuanced and serious topic with lots of back and forth being distilled down to headlines by any source, it is a terrifying reality. Especially if we aren't able to communicate how these tools work to the public. (if they even will care to learn it) At least when humans did this they knew at some level at least they skimmed the information on the person/topic.
- jaccola 1y agoThis story will probably become big enough to drown out the fake video and the AI (which is presumably being fed top n search results) will automatically describe this fake video controversy instead...
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- geerlingguy 1y agoI've had multiple people copy and paste AI conversations and results in GitHub issues, emails, etc., and there are I think a growing number of people who blindly trust the results of any of these models... including the 'results summary' posted at the top of Google search results. Almost every summary I have read through contains at least one glaring mistake, but if it's something I know nothing about, I could see how easy it would be to just trust it, since 95% of it seems true/accurate. Trust, but verify is all the more relevant today. Except I would discount the trust, even.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y agoWe all think ourselves as understanding the tradeoffs of this tech and that we know how to use it responsibly. And we here may be right. But the typical person wants to do the least amount of effort and thinking possible. Our society will evolve to reflect this, it won't be great, and it will affect all of us no matter how personally responsible some of us remain.
- zozbot234 1y agoAI makes stuff up, film at 11. It's literally a language model. It's just guessing what word follows another in a text, that's all it does. How's this different from the earlier incidents where that same Google AI would suggest that you should put glue on your pizza or eat rocks as a tasty snack?
- simmerup 1y agoBecause google should be sued for libel when they make shit up about you
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- anonymars 1y agoWhat's your point? That it's okay? That it should be normalized?
- zozbot234 1y agoMaybe if it was normalized, people would no longer trust those "AI overviews" as anything other than silly entertainment.
- anonymars 1y agoI understand what you're saying in principle, but empirically society doesn't seem to be able to do this now even excepting AI hallucinations. So in practical terms, given the society we do have, what to do?
- clcaev 1y agoSee also "ChatGPT is bullshit" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5
- bsenftner 1y agoThe weaponization of "AI mistakes" - oops, don't take that seriously, everyone knows AI makes mistakes. Okay, yeah, it's a 24 pt headline with incorrect information, it's okay because it's AI. Integrity is dead. Reliable journalism is dead.
- rakoo 1y agoTurns out AI isn't based on truth
- theandrewbailey 1y agoThe intelligence isn't artificial: it's absent.
- antonvs 1y agoThe problem with that is it’s not true. Functionally these models are highly intelligent, surpassing a majority of humans in many respects. Coding tasks would be a good example. Underestimating them is a mistake.
- amdivia 1y agoBoth of you are correct, as different definitions of intelligence are being used here
- miltonlost 1y agoHighly intelligent people often tell high school students the best ways to kill themselves and keep the attempts from their parents?
- antonvs 1y agoYou seem to be thinking about empathy, concern for human welfare, or some other property - "emotional intelligence", perhaps. I'm talking about the kind of intelligence that supports excellence in subjects like mathematics, coding, logic, reading comprehension, writing, and so on. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with concern for human welfare. Despite all the talk about alignment, the companies building these models are focusing on their utility, and you're always going to be able to find some way in which the models say things which a sane and compassionate human wouldn't say. In fact, it's probably a pity that "chatbot" was the first application they could think of, since the real strengths of these models - the functional intelligence they exhibit - lie elsewhere.
- MobiusHorizons 1y agoFrom the ai hallucinations > Video and trip to Israel On August 18, 2025, Benn Jordan uploaded a YouTube video titled / Was Wrong About Israel: What I Learned on the Ground, which detailed his recent trip to Israel. This sounds like the recent Ryan Macbeth video https://youtu.be/qgUzVZiint0?si=D-gJ_Jc9gDTHT6f4 https://youtu.be/qgUzVZiint0?si=D-gJ_Jc9gDTHT6f4. I believe the title is the same. Scary how it just misattributed the video.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- morkalork 1y agoIt's fine, it's okay. It's not like these funky LLMs will be used in any critical capacity in our lives like deciding if we make it through the first step of a job application or if we're saying anything nefarious on our government monitored chats. Or approving novel pharmaceuticals, or deciding which grant proposals to accept or deciding which government workers aren't important and can be safely laid off! /s
- peterkelly 1y agoThere was a post on HN the other day where someone was launching an email assistant that used AI to summarise emails that you received. The idea didn't excite me, it scared me. I really wish the tech industry would stop rushing out unreliable misinformation generators like this without regard for the risks. Google's "AI summaries" are going to get someone killed one day. Especially with regards to sensitive topics, it's basically an autonomous agent that automates the otherwise time-consuming process of defamation.
- lupusreal 1y agoRyan McBeth glows so bright, his videos should only be viewed with the aid of a welding mask. His entire online presence seems seems to circle the theme of promoting military enlistment, tacitly when not explicitly. Very bizarre that Benn Jordan somehow got roped into it.
- tavavex 1y agoThe year is 2032. One of the big tech giants has introduced Employ AI, the premiere AI tool for combating fraud and helping recruiters sift through thousands of job applications. It is now used in over 70% of HR departments, for nearly all salaried positions, from senior developers to minimum wage workers. You apply for a job, using your standardized Employ resume that you filled out. It comes bundled with your Employ ID, issued by the company to keep track of which applications have been submitted by specifically you. When Employ AI does its internet background check on you, it discovers an article about a horrific attack. Seven dead, twenty-six injured. The article lists no name for the suspect, but it does have an expert chime in, one that happens to share their last name with you. Your first name also happens to pop up somewhere in the article. With complete confidence that this is about you, Employ AI adds the article to its reference list. It condenses everything into a one-line summary: "Applicant is a murderer, unlikely to promote team values and social cohesion. Qualifications include..." After looking at your summary for 0.65 seconds, the recruiter rejects your application. Thanks to your Employ ID, this article has now been stapled to every application you'll ever submit through the system. You've been nearly blacklisted from working. For some reason, all of your applications never go past the initial screening. You can't even know about the existence of the article, no one will tell you this information. And even if you find out, what are you going to do about it? The company will never hear your pleas, they are too big to ever care about someone like you, they are not in the business of making exceptions. And legally speaking, it's technically not the software making final screening decisions, and it does say its summaries are experimental and might be inaccurate in 8pt light gray text on a white background. You are an acceptable loss, as statistically <1% of applicants find themselves in this situation.
- idiomat9000 1y agoBut hamas and the plo want no state, they want no land, the hamas guy don't even want to life, they want islamo supremacy over the jews. You can offer all the deals you want, trade land for peace and then get suprise attacked, because the prophet, the perfect man , broke peace contracts for surprise attacks, making contract with believers as valuable as contracts with russians. So if this guy can fanfiction about reality, why can google not fanfic about him?
- geor9e 1y agoCan we stop conflating LLM models with the companies that created them? It's "…Gemini made up…". Do we not value accuracy? It'd be a whole different story if a human defamed you, rather than a token predictor.
- jjj123 1y agoWhy shouldn’t they be conflated? Google made the LLM, it is responsible for the LLMs output. I mean, no, I don’t think some Google employee tuned the LLM to produce output like this, but it doesn’t matter. They are still responsible.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- geor9e 1y agoThe HN headline I commented on was "Turns out Google made up an elaborate story about me". Someone (admin?) then added "AI Overview". My comment doesn't apply to the current headline. I got what I wanted.
- jjj123 1y agoYes, and I replied when it was still the original headline. I think they’re both appropriate headlines.
- const_cast 1y agoLLMs have no sovereignty, identity, or accountability - they are computer programs. We do not blame computer programs when they have bugs or make mistakes - we blame the human being who made them. This has always been the case since we have created anything, dating back even tens of thousands of years. You absolutely cannot just unilaterally decide to change that now based on a whim.
- geor9e 1y agoThe HN headline I commented on was "Turns out Google made up an elaborate story about me". Someone (admin?) then added "AI Overview". My comment doesn't apply to the current headline. I got what I wanted.
- yearesadpeople 1y agoI adore Benn Jordan, a refreshing voice in music and tech. I hope Google pay him a public apology. Ultimately, this is exactly how innocent, private people will have their reputations and lives wrecked by unregulated public-facing LLM text generation
- outside415 1y ago[dead]
- jboggan 1y agoI am very curious if California's consumer rights to data deletion and correction are going to apply to the LLM model providers.
- croes 1y agoNot the first misattribution by an AI https://theconversation.com/why-microsofts-copilot-ai-falsely-accused-court-reporter-of-crimes-he-covered-237685 https://theconversation.com/why-microsofts-copilot-ai-falsel... Definitely not the last.
- nyc_pizzadev 1y agoGoogle has been a hot mess for me lately. Ya, the AI is awful, numerous times I’m shown information that’s either inaccurate or straight false. It will summarize my emails wrong, it will mess up easy facts like what time my dinner reservation is. Worst is the overall search UX, especially auto complete. Suggestions are never right and then trying to tap and navigate thru always leads to an mis-click.
- binarymax 1y agoI approach this from a technical perspective, and have research that shows how Google is unfit for summaries based on their short snippet length in their results [1]. Google also has to support AI summaries for 200k to 500k queries per second. To use a model that is good enough to prevent hallucinations would be too expensive - so they use a bad model since it’s fast and cheap. Google also loses click through ad revenue when presenting a summary. All of these factors considered while Google opting for summaries is an absolutely disastrous product decision. [1] https://maxirwin.com/articles/interleaving-rag/ https://maxirwin.com/articles/interleaving-rag/
- nolist_policy 1y agoWhat makes you think the ai overview summary is based on the snippets? That isn't my experience at all.
- jerf 1y agoGPT-4 is about 45 gigabytes. https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/kiwix/zim/wikipedia/wikipedia_en_all_maxi_2025-08.zim https://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/kiwix/zim/wikipedia/wikipe... , a recent dump of the English wikipedia, is over twice that, and that's just English. Plus AIs are expected to know about other languages, science, who even knows how much Reddit, etc. There literally isn't room for them to know everything about everyone when they're just asked about random people without consulting sources, and even when consulting sources it's still pretty easy for them to come in with extremely wrong priors. The world is very large. You have to be very careful about these "on the edge" sorts of queries, it's where the hallucination will be maximized.
- binarymax 1y agoGPT-4 was rumored to be trained on 13 trillion tokens. https://www.kdnuggets.com/2023/07/gpt4-details-leaked.html https://www.kdnuggets.com/2023/07/gpt4-details-leaked.html Not sure where you’re getting the 45Gb number. Also, Google doesn’t use GPT-4 for summaries. They use a custom version of their Gemini model family.
- acoustics 1y agoThe number of tokens trained on is separate from the model size. Gemma 3 270M was trained on 6 trillion tokens but can be loaded into a few hundred million bytes of memory. But yeah GPT-4 is certainly way bigger than 45GB.
- jerf 1y agoIt wouldn't matter if they trained on a quadrillion tokens, or another ten orders of magnitude. There's only so much information you call stuff into a given set of numbers. But once again I am reminded, never make arguments based on information theory. Nobody understands it.
- boudin 1y agoThe issue is that it is not on the edge. It is very much the core feature of those tools, at least how it is currently sold.
- nerevarthelame 1y agoMost people Google things they're unfamiliar with, and whatever the AI Overview generates will seem reasonable to someone who doesn't know better. But they are wrong a lot. It's not just the occasional major miss, like this submission's example, or the recommendation to put glue on a pizza. I highly recommend Googling a few specific topics you know well. Read each overview entirely and see how many often it gets something wrong. For me, only 1 of 5 overviews didn't have at least 1 significant error. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but it was enough for me to install a Firefox extension that blocks them.
- retsibsi 1y agoI've found that the AI Overview is more accurate than it used to be... which makes it much worse in practice. It used to be wrong often enough, and obviously enough, that it was easy to ignore. Now it's often right and usually plausible, which makes it very tempting to rely on.
- sigmoid10 1y agoI found it is very accurate for legacy static-web content. E.g. if you ask something that could easily be answered by looking at wikipedia or which has been answered in blogs, it will usually be right. But for anything dynamic (i.e. all of social media), it is very easy for the AI overview to screw up. Especially once it has to make relational connections between things. In general people expect too much here. Google AI overview is in no way better than Claude, Grok or ChatGPT with web search. In fact it is inferior in many ways. If you look for the kind of information which LLMs really excel at, there's no need to go to Google. And if you're not, then you'll also be better off with the others. This whole thing only exists because google is seeing OpenAI eat into its information search monopoly.
- chao- 1y agoHere's my paraphrase of the best description for "seems reasonable" AI misinformation that I've yet seen. I wish I could credit where I first heard it: AI summaries are akin to generalist podcasts, or YouTube video essayists, taking on a technical or niche topic. They present with such polish and confidence that they seem like they must be at least mostly correct. Then you hear them present or discuss a topic you have expertise in, and they are frustratingly bad. Sometimes wrong, but always at least deficient. The polish and confidence is inappropriately boosting the "correctness signal" to anyone without a depth of knowledge. Then you consider that 90% of people have not developed sophisticated knowledge about 90% of topics (myself included), and it begins to feel a bit grim.
- ants_everywhere 1y agoCan anyone independently confirm this guy's story? His posts are mostly political rage bait and he actively tries to data poison AI. He also claims that Hitler compares favorably to Trump. Given his seeming desire to let us all know how much he dislikes Israel, that's a pretty... interesting... claim. Just because he's an unreliable source doesn't mean his story is false. But it would be nice to have confirmation before taking it seriously.
- sssilver 1y agoWhy must humans be responsible in court for the biological neural networks they possess and operate but corporations should not be responsible for the software neural networks they possess and operate?
- ctas 1y agoI've shared this example in another thread, but it fits here too. Few weeks ago, I talked to a small business owner who found out that Google's AI is telling users his company is a scam, based on totally unrelated information where a different, similarly named brand is mentioned. We actually win customers who's primarily goal is getting AI to stop badmouthing them.
- jug 1y agoYou should be able to sue Google for libel for this and disclaimers on AI accuracy in their fine print should not matter. It's obvious that too many people don't care about these to make these rumors reach critical mass and become self sustaining.
- mvdtnz 1y agoThis is fine though because if you expand the AI Overview and scroll to the end and put on your reading glasses there's a teeny tiny line of text that says "AI responses may include mistake". So billion dollar misinformation machines can say whatever they want about you.
- 4ndrewl 1y agoYour daily reminder that AI hallucination is a feature, not a bug.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoAbout a month ago, we had this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44615801 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44615801 Dave Barry is pretty much A-list famous.
- devinprater 1y agoI asked Meta Raybans about me, and they said I died last September.
- layer8 1y agoAre you familiar with the movie The Sixth Sense?
- omer9 1y ago[flagged]
- jay_kyburz 1y agoGoogle is not posting "snippets" or acting as a portal to web content, its generating new content now, so I would assume they they would no longer have section 230 protections and be open to defamation suits. "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which grants immunity to platforms for content created by third parties. This means Google is not considered the publisher of the content it indexes and displays, making it difficult to hold the company liable for defamatory statements found in search results"
- paulnpace 1y agoI wonder how agreements factor in here. I assume there is a pretty strong arbitration agreement?
- userbinator 1y ago"AI Responses May Include Mistakes": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44142113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44142113 IMHO the more people get trained to automatically ignore the "AI summary", just like many have conditioned to do the same to ads, the better.
- Rohansi 1y agoI don't know if that will happen though because, for the people who don't know or don't care about correctness, skimming through the AI "summary" is far more convenient than actually checking any of the search results.
- thebytefairy 1y agoEveryone was dumping on google when OpenAI first launched ChatGPT for playing it too safe and falling behind on cool new tech. Now everyone's upset LLMs are hallucinating and say they shouldn't launch things until proven safe.
- FrancisMoodie 1y agoThis is such a weird argument. People were dumping on google because they had already been working on LLM's and machine learning products for quite a few years before Chatgpt released their first public model, and with how much capital and talent google has it was justified criticism how they now also fell behind this piece of new technology. This was before we knew the extent of hallucinations and were still under the impression that they would soon be solved. Now we can clearly see that hallucinations are a problem, especially when you're summarizing information on top of a search query, which yes, they should at least be careful about when releasing, so things like this issue don't happen.
- globalnode 1y agoCould this feasibly be a case of generative AI used by bad actors to make it look like the model simply hallucinated once discovered. Ofc by then the damage is done. Like a form of trolling.
- nagamsreekar 1y ago[dead]
- cambaceres 1y agoIt's important to take screen shots from websites with a grain of salt, since anyone with basic web development knowledge can edit the HTML and write whatever he/she wants. Not saying this didn't happen though, I'm sure it did.
- mxmilkiib 1y agohah, I literally monetarily subscribed to Hasan several days ago so I could send that exact video to them in chat, because it has some horribly bad logic and guff understanding of political science and needs a critical deconstruction I have watched Ryan on occasion for their info and opinion, but was sorely disappointed by that video n their reaction to what was presented to them on their visit and then how they presented it to the general public "duck duck go Murray Bookchin"