6 ms·

It'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 ago
  You 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 ago
      Reading 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.
    - snypher 1y ago
      Where do you draw the line then? I doubt the AI is assessing the risk of 'what happens if I fuck this up', so perhaps the feature should be removed?
      - onetokeoverthe 1y ago
        [dead]
    - darkwater 1y ago
      So why GP reasoning doesn't apply to Google AI snippets and you consider it a straw-man? Classic search results are clearly not Google's, they just match (or not) with your search query, then you go there and read them (and trust them or not depending on your own criteria or absence of). But a text, generated by Google, put as the first paragraph of text under your search, answering in plain English to a specific question you just asked, what should a disclaimer like that supposed to be? A "read it but discard it because it could be factually wrong"? Why are they showing it topmost? I do understand it is a complicated matter, but looks like Google just want to be there, no matter what, in the GenAI race. How much will it take for those snippets to be sponsored content? They are marketing them as the first thing a Google user should read.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >Classic search results are clearly not Google's, they just match (or not) with your search query, then you go there and read them (and trust them or not depending on your own criteria or absence of). What you said might be true in the early days of google, but google clearly doesn't do exact word matches anymore. There's quite a lot of fuzzy matches going on, which means there's arguably some editorializing going on. This might be relevant if someone was searching for "john smith rapist" and got back results for him sexually harassing someone. It might even be phrased in such a way that makes it sound like he was a rapist, eg. "florida man accused of sexually...". Moreover even before AI results, I've seen enough people say "google says..." in reference to search results that it's questionable to claim that people think non-AI search results aren't by google.
    - SpaceNugget 1y ago
      Since you are clearly an AI enjoyer I asked my local LLM to summarize your feelings for me. It said: > As evidenced by the quote "I think a disclaimer is a carte blanche to do literally anything", the hackernews user <gruez> is clearly of the opinion that it is indeed ok to do whatever you want, as long is there is a sign stating it might happen. * This text was summarized by the SpaceNugget LLM and may contain errors, and thusly no one can ever be held accountable for any mistakes herein.
  - financetechbro 1y ago
    These are great life hacks! Thanks for sharing
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Fun fact along this line of reasoning: all those dump trucks with the "not responsible for broken windshields" stickers? Yes, yes they are responsible. You can't just put up a sticker premeditating your property damage and then it'd a-okay. No, the sticker is there to deter YOU from suing in small claims court. Because you think you can't. But you can! And their insurance can cover it!
blibble 1y ago
it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? not a quote from someone else, just completely made up based on nothing other than word salad would you honestly think "oh that's fine, because there's a size 8 text at the bottom saying it may be incorrect" I very much doubt it
- gruez 1y ago
  >it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content >how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result, which was a slanderous site saying that you're a registered sex offender. Should google still be held liable? If so, should they be held liable immediately, or only after a chance to issue a correction?
  - simmerup 1y ago
    No, but the person Googles linking to should be held liable.
    - gruez 1y ago
      Why does google get off the hook in that case? I'd still be quite upset if it wasn't in the AI box, and even before the AI box there's plenty of people who take the snippets at face value.
      - simmerup 1y ago
        In my mind the Google result page is like a public space. You wouldn't punish the person who owns the park if someone inside it breaks the law as long as they were facilitating the law to be obeyed. And Google facilitiates the law by allowing you to take down slanderous material by putting in a request, and further you can go after the original slanderer if you like. But in this case Google itself is putting out slanderous information it has created itself. So Google in my mind is left holding the buck.

>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 ago
You 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 ago
    Reading 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.
  - snypher 1y ago
    Where do you draw the line then? I doubt the AI is assessing the risk of 'what happens if I fuck this up', so perhaps the feature should be removed?
    - onetokeoverthe 1y ago
      [dead]
  - darkwater 1y ago
    So why GP reasoning doesn't apply to Google AI snippets and you consider it a straw-man? Classic search results are clearly not Google's, they just match (or not) with your search query, then you go there and read them (and trust them or not depending on your own criteria or absence of). But a text, generated by Google, put as the first paragraph of text under your search, answering in plain English to a specific question you just asked, what should a disclaimer like that supposed to be? A "read it but discard it because it could be factually wrong"? Why are they showing it topmost? I do understand it is a complicated matter, but looks like Google just want to be there, no matter what, in the GenAI race. How much will it take for those snippets to be sponsored content? They are marketing them as the first thing a Google user should read.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Classic search results are clearly not Google's, they just match (or not) with your search query, then you go there and read them (and trust them or not depending on your own criteria or absence of). What you said might be true in the early days of google, but google clearly doesn't do exact word matches anymore. There's quite a lot of fuzzy matches going on, which means there's arguably some editorializing going on. This might be relevant if someone was searching for "john smith rapist" and got back results for him sexually harassing someone. It might even be phrased in such a way that makes it sound like he was a rapist, eg. "florida man accused of sexually...". Moreover even before AI results, I've seen enough people say "google says..." in reference to search results that it's questionable to claim that people think non-AI search results aren't by google.
  - SpaceNugget 1y ago
    Since you are clearly an AI enjoyer I asked my local LLM to summarize your feelings for me. It said: > As evidenced by the quote "I think a disclaimer is a carte blanche to do literally anything", the hackernews user <gruez> is clearly of the opinion that it is indeed ok to do whatever you want, as long is there is a sign stating it might happen. * This text was summarized by the SpaceNugget LLM and may contain errors, and thusly no one can ever be held accountable for any mistakes herein.
- financetechbro 1y ago
  These are great life hacks! Thanks for sharing
- const_cast 1y ago
  Fun fact along this line of reasoning: all those dump trucks with the "not responsible for broken windshields" stickers? Yes, yes they are responsible. You can't just put up a sticker premeditating your property damage and then it'd a-okay. No, the sticker is there to deter YOU from suing in small claims court. Because you think you can't. But you can! And their insurance can cover it!

blibble 1y ago

it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? not a quote from someone else, just completely made up based on nothing other than word salad would you honestly think "oh that's fine, because there's a size 8 text at the bottom saying it may be incorrect" I very much doubt it

gruez 1y ago
>it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content >how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result, which was a slanderous site saying that you're a registered sex offender. Should google still be held liable? If so, should they be held liable immediately, or only after a chance to issue a correction?
- simmerup 1y ago
  No, but the person Googles linking to should be held liable.
  - gruez 1y ago
    Why does google get off the hook in that case? I'd still be quite upset if it wasn't in the AI box, and even before the AI box there's plenty of people who take the snippets at face value.
    - simmerup 1y ago
      In my mind the Google result page is like a public space. You wouldn't punish the person who owns the park if someone inside it breaks the law as long as they were facilitating the law to be obeyed. And Google facilitiates the law by allowing you to take down slanderous material by putting in a request, and further you can go after the original slanderer if you like. But in this case Google itself is putting out slanderous information it has created itself. So Google in my mind is left holding the buck.