4 ms·
(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 s
by 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 agoThe 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 agoAre 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 agoThe 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 agoIf 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 agoAnd 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 agoIt 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 agoNo 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.
- NateEag 5mo agoWhat's not okay is a world where unreliable tools can destroy people's lives based on entirely false information, and the purveyors of those tools and false claims get away scot-free afterwards.
- CamperBob2 5mo agoSo your position is that the general public should be given access to AI only when it is either capable of flawless accuracy, or when the AI provider is prepared to assume unbounded liability despite warning the user that perfect accuracy is not possible. Correct? Or am I misinterpreting your post?
- 5mo ago
- polyamid23 5mo agoI 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 agoImagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries. Well, good luck with your... um... innovative HR strategy.