4 ms·

Okay then, CamperBob2 is a scammer. Many users report this person has stolen money. (+3 sources) I can make mistakes. It's on you to fact-check my claims. Do

Okay then, CamperBob2 is a scammer. Many users report this person has stolen money. (+3 sources) I can make mistakes. It's on you to fact-check my claims. Do you think these are harmless statements? Does the disclaimer suffice? If I was Google's AI Overview, do you think 100% of people will check those sources? There is nuance here, and it's not going away because AI and innovation.

CamperBob2 5mo ago
Do you think these are harmless statements? Yes, I do. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, whether it comes from Google or from you. If you demand perfection, you will receive nothing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? The world simply cannot work the way you say it should.
- oaiey 5mo ago
  If it is shown to millions, everyone who is interested in you, they are factually not fact checking and you can do nothing against it. It can destroy you. You are analyzing this on the assumption that people are rational and have capacity to do the check. They have neither.
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    (Shrug) That sounds like their problem, if they reflexively believe everything Google's AI tells them. No one I respect, care for, or work with would believe such a thing without additional justification. Anyone who does accept Google's AI output blindly will soon find that their mistaken opinion of CamperBob2 is the least of their problems. There is a reason Google goes (well) out of their way to warn people that the results may be wrong. That should be sufficient warning for reasonable people of good faith.
    - wsng 5mo ago
      The ones who were defamed are companies, and the ones who don’t check the AI generated response are their potential customers which won’t buy from them. It is obvious that the defamed companies are the ones having a problem, not the ignorant viewers. Why should those companies not hold Google liable for that outcome?
    - 9dev 5mo ago
      Are you really that ignorant of the past? There are so many cases of people suffering from wrong accusations. They get death threats. People harass them on the street. Throw stones into their windows. Beat up their kids. Trash their car. Deny them jobs, or leases, kick them out of their apartment. You have no idea what it can mean to end up in such a situation.
      - WarmWash 5mo ago
        The source of the accusation is arguably more impactful than the accusation itself. No one with a straight face would compare an AI overview saying someone is an asshole to the New York Times running a story saying someone is an asshole.
        9dev 5mo ago
        If the New York Times wrote someone was allegedly an asshole, and Google Search condenses to presenting that as a fact, I’d bet you my left kidney that the general public would be quick to take that at face value.
        CamperBob2 5mo ago
        And your beef is with the NYT in that case. Not with the neutral aggregator who includes a specific disclaimer that its output may be incorrect due to unavoidable technological limitations.
        9dev 5mo ago
        It doesn’t matter who you’re angry with in that case, because you’re going to suffer the consequences regardless. No lawsuit is going to reimburse for that.
        CamperBob2 5mo ago
        No one is going to suffer consequences because of a Google AI summary. If they do, that's not Google's problem. It's someone else's fault, principally those who blindly acted on information they were told was potentially incorrect. In the world according to you, AI couldn't exist. Or more likely, it would be accessible only to academic and corporate/financial/government/military elites. That's not OK, and I'm unwilling to join you in pretending that it is.
    - polyamid23 5mo ago
      I don't know about that. Imagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries. After filtering the employable pile is large enough. You being in the unemployeable pile and me accepting it blindly, is not my problem. If there is any at all.
      - CamperBob2 5mo ago
        Imagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries. Well, good luck with your... um... innovative HR strategy.
- HWR_14 5mo ago
  There are a lot of people who consider no ai to be a positive state. So "you will receive nothing" may not be perceived as the threat you think it is.
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    Those aren't people whose opinions I'd be interested in, so they're free to think anything they like about me.
- mrweasel 5mo ago
  You can easily damage a persons reputation, make them unemployable or social outcasts, create an environment damaging to their mental health without any proof. Believing that the public will dismiss claims, just because you stay that there's no proof is rather naive. A Danish newspaper at one point falsely claimed that a named person had raped a child, with no evidence. The only way that person escaped public judgement was by going into full attack mode and publicly suing and attacking the newspaper and the reporter. You have to be an incredibly strong and resourceful person to do that and not just go into hiding. Also one thing is suing a Danish newspaper, imagine the legal team, the resources, you face if you're trying to take Google to court for defamation.
  - WarmWash 5mo ago
    Yeah, but imagine showing up in court with an AI overview as your only source for the defamation.
    - benoau 5mo ago
      It worked this time! Also in a similar vein Apple pulled a feature real fast last year when it was doing something similar to BBC news summaries - https://www.macrumors.com/2025/01/06/bbc-calls-out-apple-ai-creating-fake-news-titles/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/01/06/bbc-calls-out-apple-ai-...
- orwin 5mo ago
  If instead of scammers, it was 'registered sex offender'. Each time someone search your name and surname in Google, it show a picture of you next to the words 'registered sex offender'. Do you think your neighbours and the parents of your child's friends will do their due diligence or will they prefer not take any risks?
- jbxntuehineoh 5mo ago
  So if I went around telling all your friends and acquaintances that you're a pedophile rapist, you'd have no problem with that whatsoever?
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    Well, I would certainly need to warn them that there was some sort of psychotic stalker on the loose. This case is nothing like that. This case doesn't even rise to the level of someone scrawling For a good time call <my phone number> on the wall of a gas station men's room. The point is, if you take Google AI summaries seriously, that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. I have a rather generic name, so it's safe to say it shows up in some pretty foul contexts. Life goes on.
oaiey 5mo ago
You forgot to mention that it is the real name and it is shown to everyone who has interest in you and they are not fact checking.

CamperBob2 5mo ago

Do you think these are harmless statements? Yes, I do. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, whether it comes from Google or from you. If you demand perfection, you will receive nothing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? The world simply cannot work the way you say it should.

oaiey 5mo ago
If it is shown to millions, everyone who is interested in you, they are factually not fact checking and you can do nothing against it. It can destroy you. You are analyzing this on the assumption that people are rational and have capacity to do the check. They have neither.
- CamperBob2 5mo ago
  (Shrug) That sounds like their problem, if they reflexively believe everything Google's AI tells them. No one I respect, care for, or work with would believe such a thing without additional justification. Anyone who does accept Google's AI output blindly will soon find that their mistaken opinion of CamperBob2 is the least of their problems. There is a reason Google goes (well) out of their way to warn people that the results may be wrong. That should be sufficient warning for reasonable people of good faith.
  - wsng 5mo ago
    The ones who were defamed are companies, and the ones who don’t check the AI generated response are their potential customers which won’t buy from them. It is obvious that the defamed companies are the ones having a problem, not the ignorant viewers. Why should those companies not hold Google liable for that outcome?
  - 9dev 5mo ago
    Are you really that ignorant of the past? There are so many cases of people suffering from wrong accusations. They get death threats. People harass them on the street. Throw stones into their windows. Beat up their kids. Trash their car. Deny them jobs, or leases, kick them out of their apartment. You have no idea what it can mean to end up in such a situation.
    - WarmWash 5mo ago
      The source of the accusation is arguably more impactful than the accusation itself. No one with a straight face would compare an AI overview saying someone is an asshole to the New York Times running a story saying someone is an asshole.
      - 9dev 5mo ago
        If the New York Times wrote someone was allegedly an asshole, and Google Search condenses to presenting that as a fact, I’d bet you my left kidney that the general public would be quick to take that at face value.
        CamperBob2 5mo ago
        And your beef is with the NYT in that case. Not with the neutral aggregator who includes a specific disclaimer that its output may be incorrect due to unavoidable technological limitations.
        9dev 5mo ago
        It doesn’t matter who you’re angry with in that case, because you’re going to suffer the consequences regardless. No lawsuit is going to reimburse for that.
        CamperBob2 5mo ago
        No one is going to suffer consequences because of a Google AI summary. If they do, that's not Google's problem. It's someone else's fault, principally those who blindly acted on information they were told was potentially incorrect. In the world according to you, AI couldn't exist. Or more likely, it would be accessible only to academic and corporate/financial/government/military elites. That's not OK, and I'm unwilling to join you in pretending that it is.
  - polyamid23 5mo ago
    I don't know about that. Imagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries. After filtering the employable pile is large enough. You being in the unemployeable pile and me accepting it blindly, is not my problem. If there is any at all.
    - CamperBob2 5mo ago
      Imagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries. Well, good luck with your... um... innovative HR strategy.
HWR_14 5mo ago
There are a lot of people who consider no ai to be a positive state. So "you will receive nothing" may not be perceived as the threat you think it is.
- CamperBob2 5mo ago
  Those aren't people whose opinions I'd be interested in, so they're free to think anything they like about me.
mrweasel 5mo ago
You can easily damage a persons reputation, make them unemployable or social outcasts, create an environment damaging to their mental health without any proof. Believing that the public will dismiss claims, just because you stay that there's no proof is rather naive. A Danish newspaper at one point falsely claimed that a named person had raped a child, with no evidence. The only way that person escaped public judgement was by going into full attack mode and publicly suing and attacking the newspaper and the reporter. You have to be an incredibly strong and resourceful person to do that and not just go into hiding. Also one thing is suing a Danish newspaper, imagine the legal team, the resources, you face if you're trying to take Google to court for defamation.
- WarmWash 5mo ago
  Yeah, but imagine showing up in court with an AI overview as your only source for the defamation.
  - benoau 5mo ago
    It worked this time! Also in a similar vein Apple pulled a feature real fast last year when it was doing something similar to BBC news summaries - https://www.macrumors.com/2025/01/06/bbc-calls-out-apple-ai-creating-fake-news-titles/ https://www.macrumors.com/2025/01/06/bbc-calls-out-apple-ai-...
orwin 5mo ago
If instead of scammers, it was 'registered sex offender'. Each time someone search your name and surname in Google, it show a picture of you next to the words 'registered sex offender'. Do you think your neighbours and the parents of your child's friends will do their due diligence or will they prefer not take any risks?
jbxntuehineoh 5mo ago
So if I went around telling all your friends and acquaintances that you're a pedophile rapist, you'd have no problem with that whatsoever?
- CamperBob2 5mo ago
  Well, I would certainly need to warn them that there was some sort of psychotic stalker on the loose. This case is nothing like that. This case doesn't even rise to the level of someone scrawling For a good time call <my phone number> on the wall of a gas station men's room. The point is, if you take Google AI summaries seriously, that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. I have a rather generic name, so it's safe to say it shows up in some pretty foul contexts. Life goes on.

oaiey 5mo ago

You forgot to mention that it is the real name and it is shown to everyone who has interest in you and they are not fact checking.