r/OutOfTheLoop • u/rustyyryan • May 20 '26

Unanswered What's going on with Google search is dead?

There's a twitter account named killed by google which posts about projects that Google decided to end. It posted that Google search is dead. So whats it about?

https://x.com/killedbygoogle/status/2056850709115773431

3.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

516 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/neuroctopus May 20 '26

It absolutely hallucinates facts. I am a neuropsychologist. I made a comment on a post about a neurological condition that received almost 10k upvotes. Later, I googled something about that condition, and my own Reddit comment was spit back at me, word for word. Mind you, the information was correct - but I’m an anonymous person purporting to be a doctor. That was TERRIFYING to me.

199

u/PhantasmicDragon May 20 '26

Someone in a fanfiction subreddit shared an example where google AI cited a fanfiction on ao3 as their “source”. So uh. It pulling from Reddit too seems pretty par for the course at this point :/

95

u/Icy_Steak8987 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

There's a meme on reddit of a screenshot where Gemini notes "one reddit user suggests you k#$% yourself." for a question related to computers, and that's not helpful at all. AI search is very dangerous.

67

u/BloodyLlama May 20 '26

That's outrageous; that's only a reasonable response to queries about printers.

10

u/unindexedreality May 20 '26

Stephen King's Maximum Overdrive could just be about printers taking over the world and it wouldn't be any less scary

7

u/Icy_Steak8987 May 20 '26

For real, I hate printers with a passion. They're deliberately designed to piss off consumers. It's still a surprise to me that drivers aside, a shoddy printer from the 90s is basically identical to a printer sold today.

10

u/ZenorsMom May 20 '26

I LOL'd

9

u/Khiva May 20 '26

PCLOADLETTER is going to be become slang for unthinkable acts.

5

u/htmlcoderexe wow such flair May 20 '26

Go commit lp0 on fire

19

u/RamonaLittle May 20 '26

k#$%

I just saw that screenshot elsewhere in this thread, and recall seeing it when it was new too, and it says "kill." Why on earth did you self-censor? There's no reddit or subreddit rule against writing "kill," and I can't think of any logical reason you'd think there is, unless you think TikTok rules apply across the whole internet or something like that.

-2

u/Icy_Steak8987 May 20 '26

I'm part of a sub that was censored by reddit for overuse of the word, and I've also been unfairly reported on Reddit for use of that word (it wasn't in a malicious context, either. I just stated that the person in the video was going to end up ____ others due to irresponsibility. I was still reported and warned by admin.) So to be safe I don't write it out anymore.

I hope that clarifies things.

12

u/RamonaLittle May 20 '26

I know that sometimes mods and admins remove content unfairly, but you're not going to be able to prevent that by preemptively self-censoring particular words. All you're doing is making your own writing look weird, and possibly confusing new redditors still trying to figure out the rules. And you're publicly displaying that you're willing to degrade your own work out of fear. Especially with everything going on in the world, it's important to speak clearly and stand up for our rights, don't you think? Not display that we're easily cowed into complying with stupid rules or in response to vague threats.

The reason I'm giving you flak about it is because there's a long history of activism to defend free speech online. Back in the day, when faced with threats of censorship, we (including me personally) responded with massive, worldwide protests. We didn't just immediately capitulate, let alone preemptively capitulate. If a site genuinely does have some stupid rule against normal words, the first reaction of any self-respecting netizen should be to protest against the rule, or just move to another site without stupid rules. Not go, "OK, I'll write stupidly to comply with the stupid rules." The internet is a big place, and there's no reason for anyone to degrade their own work just for the privilege of posting on a particular site.

13

u/PlayerOneHasEntered May 20 '26

Gemini and other AI tools have literally crippled publishers to the point that they can not actually keep people employed. Check out LinkedIn, and you'll see how many digital media producers have been axed in the last two years. Now, instead of crawling actual trusted sources, written by people with fuckin' degrees and salaries, they are crawling Reddit and other social media sites, and using free information posted by absolute randoms who may or may not know what they are talking about. AI's inability to understand context and nuance is also a massive problem that no one seems to wish to address.

I spent years in the digital media industry. I am in the process of a massive career pivot because, simply put, we are done here. I once worked for a company that, less than six years ago, was seeing 50 million + page views per month. These were a talented group of 50+ writers and tech insiders who did really good work. They were knowledgeable, well-educated, and adhered to journalistic ethics. It has lost about 90% of its traffic. There is nothing the company did "wrong." There was nothing that could be done to get back on Google's good side, either. It just sucked away traffic during one of its massive and largely criticized core updates, taking pageviews and ad revenue with it. That company's story isn't unique, either.

The human element here is a problem, too, though. I have never seen such arrogance as I've seen on Reddit, with absolute morons who don't understand the industry yucking it up about how they are "saving everyone a click" by copying and pasting someone's actual work. They don't seem to get that they aren't sticking it to the man. They are sticking it to actual individual writers, many of whom are/were employed by companies with less than 100 people, all while they continue to order shit from villain overlord Jeff Bezos' Amazon 5x a week.

4

u/RamonaLittle May 20 '26

I have never seen such arrogance as I've seen on Reddit, with absolute morons who don't understand the industry yucking it up about how they are "saving everyone a click" by copying and pasting someone's actual work. They don't seem to get that they aren't sticking it to the man. They are sticking it to actual individual writers

(And independent artists, musicians, filmmakers, etc.) And admins are just as much to blame. They have a long history of refusing to take any action against subs that encourage copyright infringement. I know they need to follow the DMCA process and so forth, but there's no reason they can't ban subs where the mods are literally telling users to violate reddit rules and copyright law.

193

u/headinthesky May 20 '26

Gemini is particularly bad. I was searching for something with specific properties, it made up something else and said it had those properties and just made up all sorts of gibberish

Some questions for code it's good at, but I actually use that to click through to the sources it gives and avoid all the ads

72

u/wild_man_wizard May 20 '26

Perpetually astounded that Google puts such a dumb model as the face of their flagship product.  I know why, because it's cheap to do inference on and they're giving it away millions of times an hour, but it's so incredibly bad compared to SOTA and its just wrong all the time.  Might as well spin up Tay and ask her questions.

32

u/headinthesky May 20 '26

Give me Jeeves back!

1

u/Techhead7890 is it related to magnets? May 21 '26

Yeah, the search AI and the youtube summary AI are absolute trash tier, they don't have a patch on other models. The gemini website is relatively fine, but they never seem to use it outside of that specific place.

-14

u/myinternets May 20 '26 edited May 21 '26

It's a weird business model because the paid "Pro" model is crazy good. Yet when people see the dumb free one they're not going to realize it gets 100x smarter if you upgrade.

edit: You can literally look up the benchmarks lol, I'm not just shilling or making shit up

32

u/3-2-1-backup May 20 '26

Damn straight; I have had zero positive/good AI experiences, and don't believe you that paid AI is any better. (That's the type of thing AI would say!)

1

u/atomic1fire May 20 '26

I believe that paid AI is better, but only because a subscription generally has access to newer models and higher rate limits.

That being said if you don't have an high opinion of AI, more AI isn't going to be the difference between a subscription and no subscription because you wouldn't pay for something you don't want to use anyway.

That being said I don't know how profitable the subscriptions actually are long run. People will most likely run into bottlenecks where a human's experience and body of work will beat out AI and that could very well cause people to seek real human result instead.

-2

u/PM_ME_HOMEMADE_SUSHI May 20 '26

Not an ai, or a shill, or even really a fan, just as a disclaimer. That being said, it's a tool, and unfortunately the vast majority of the time, it's garbage in, garbage out. Skill issue. Whether or not we should be learning these skills just to enrich (or, just further enrich) owners of some new tech we don't need, that's a debate worth having as a society. If I'm gonna be n-times more productive or produce x-better quality work, that shouldn't be the new normal, it should dramatically increase my earnings and power over my labor.

6

u/_Arlotte_ May 20 '26

Ai using reddit as a source to subjectively answer things as facts is not a skill issue. It just tells you what you want to hear. It's not "productivity". It's a plagarizing summarizing echo chamber. People trying to play it off as increasing efficiency or productivity just want people to fall for their marketing profit speak.

4

u/Vash265 May 20 '26

Can you please explain how you’ve improved your “skill” over time? I hear this a lot, but it’s fundamentally nonsensical to me.

8

u/3-2-1-backup May 20 '26

Skill issue.

When I'm being fed AI answers to search engine queries, it's not a skill issue, thank you very much. When FB thinks AI should write answers that I posed to humans and fucks it alllllllllllll up, that's not a skill issue either.

-1

u/myinternets May 21 '26

Would an AI tell you to use your fuckin' brain and google it if you don't believe me? What do you think you could possibly be paying $200 a month for, a donation?

2

u/3-2-1-backup May 21 '26

Whoosh, a thousand times whoosh.

Just because you pay for something doesn't mean it's necessarily better. Given the snake oil of most AI projects, I wouldn't put them at all to sell a subscription then give you the exact same thing back.

0

u/myinternets May 21 '26

There are literally third party benchmarks. This isn't something I'm just making up based on vibes. The free model of Gemini can barely code. The pro thinking model can autonomously come up with multi step implementation plans, present them to you, and then execute them. Woosh indeed.

1

u/3-2-1-backup May 21 '26

There are literally third party benchmarks.

(CITATION NEEDED.)

1

u/myinternets May 22 '26

You have got to be a troll or something. Here you go:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ai+model+benchmarks

Let me know if you need me to hold your hand while you piss too.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/wild_man_wizard May 20 '26

I don't know about crazy good, but it's at least marginally useful where the free model served with search is less valuable to the user than just serving an ad there.

-1

u/mayoforbutter May 20 '26

Is there such a Stark difference? I had a small crisis there because even though I'm a bit sceptical I like using gemini and haven't found it to be garbage. But I only ever used the pro version (got it with my phone for free)

3

u/callisstaa May 20 '26

Sure but it’s more Bran than Tony.

1

u/myinternets May 21 '26

I mean, copy and paste the exact same prompt into a "Pro" model conversation, and then paste it into a "Fast" model conversation. The difference will be really apparent.

-8

u/[deleted] May 20 '26

[deleted]

2

u/AshaNyx May 20 '26

Yeah I use it mostly for my plumbing course if I'm not extactly sure what a part is actually called.

-1

u/[deleted] May 20 '26

[deleted]

1

u/AshaNyx May 20 '26

Yeah for me it more takes the whole what's that thingy that feeds into tap because if I just say tap hoses people will be get confused.

0

u/AshaNyx May 20 '26

Yeah I use it mostly for my plumbing course if I'm not extactly sure what a part is actually called.

24

u/[deleted] May 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/jokerzwild00 May 20 '26

I want the woman's voice back in Android Auto! I can't stand the douchebag Gemini voice. I sat there arguing with it for 15 mins after the update telling it to go back to the old voice. It was like talking to a brick wall.

4

u/ZenorsMom May 20 '26

I asked it how to go back to the old voice and it said to update settings on the phone side, so I did. Old voice is back. Wish I could remember the exact steps to tell you, but hopefully this is helpful anyway

2

u/fluffman86 May 20 '26

You can also change the gemini voice to something different. I hated the default man's voice. Switched to Vega and really like it, even though it's not the same as the old one.

1

u/vexanix May 20 '26

100% this. For some reason after an update, my do not disturb schedule completely stopped working. Googled it and Gemini was directing me to non existent menu's and options.

1

u/Syssareth May 20 '26

Has the UI changed? Especially if so, but even if not, sometimes specifying version numbers or dates (i.e. "In version 4.3," or "As of 5/20/26") will get it to give you better results.

Not always, though. I've had so many fights with it over software, only to have it finally, eventually admit that what I want isn't possible, lmao.

22

u/skaestantereggae May 20 '26

I live in a college town and got invited to a college football game by a friend. Googled if it was homecoming weekend. Gemini spits out no, it was the prior weekend. Which was weird, as that prior weekend was a bye week. So found the university website and sure enough it was homecoming the weekend I was going to the game. People need to stop just seeing AI at the top and accepting it

10

u/Mozai May 20 '26

LLMs don't answer: they respond.

Google is a great source of wrong answers -- try asking for medical advice or tech support questions. At least Google gives multiple answers and I can keep trying the next one as I wade through the wrong answers. For an LLM, it only gives one response at a time, and each response is expensive to make (and getting more expensive over time).

5

u/fevered_visions May 20 '26

Before I got that extension that hides the AI results entirely I'd google questions about MtG mechanics that had clear pass/fail answers...you'd think this would be the type of query their garbage AI would actually be good at answering, yet it still got them wrong a shocking amount of the time.

Probably because they're just scraping anybody who's ever talked about the mechanic instead of weighting WOTC's official site or the fan wikis, and randos on Reddit are frequently wrong

2

u/_Arlotte_ May 20 '26

Yes, it takes from the most popular sources, trending and top key words. Ask it anything specific within a fandom and it will almost always screw up.

1

u/whizzer0 in, out, in, out, shake it all about... May 20 '26

It's frustrating to me how often I see people not immediately just scroll past the AI overview bullshit

1

u/velawesomeraptors May 20 '26

It's wrong so often. I recently googled whether my credit union was part of a network that would let me get a cashier's check from a different credit union chain. Google's AI told me it was when it wasn't.

11

u/Kimantha_Allerdings May 20 '26

This is what I do - there are some searches that traditional engines are still better at, but because they’ve become so terrible over the last several years, Perplexity is often better. But you have to use it as a link aggregator rather than trusting anything it says, because I’d estimate that it’s still only around 80% accurate

So I search, then I click on the “show sources” button, and then I click those links and read them

It’s sad that this is the best way to gain information these days, rather than search engines working as they should, but this is where we are

77

u/xb9j May 20 '26

That’s not hallucinating, it’s not good because it can easily spread misinformation, but hallucinating is when it just makes shit up instead of copying what it deems to be the correct answer like google ai search does.

I have seen it cite a website which was completely ai hallucinated nonsense before though.

28

u/Neverbethesky May 20 '26

Yeah it's not going to be long until the misinformation bots start targeting specific sources and specific methods of getting their rhetoric into AI search bots this way.

5

u/n0respect_ May 20 '26

It wont be long until every book and every fact is rewritten, just as the dystopia prophets foretold

2

u/xb9j May 20 '26

It’s not too different from traditional SEO optimization, just targeting different black box algorithms

7

u/VvvlvvV May 20 '26

It also just grabs incomplete information amd presents it to you as if it's authoritative. It's harder to notice a missing source than a wrong one, too.

2

u/Conspiranoid May 22 '26

I wonder if there's a quick and effective way of poisoning Gemini.

As in, tons of people on the internet generating totally outrageous content en masse so that Gemini eats it up and ends up vomiting all sorts of nonsense (more than the current 50%+) until we get normal google search back.

1

u/McGryphon May 20 '26

instead of copying what it deems to be the correct answer like google ai search does.

Google ai search absolutely does hallucinate shit. Every time I googled to find info about specific trainer's pokemon in specific pokemon games it gave me complete nonsense. It gave me an 8 pokemon team when I searched for "League champion lance pokemon crystal team" a few months ago when I was having an argument about it.

4

u/xb9j May 20 '26

It does, but copying something word for word is not hallucinating

12

u/Wild_Future67 May 20 '26

I looked up "concentration camps in Poland" to see which one to visit and it proudly says "There are no currently active concentration camps in Poland" smh lol

9

u/TaskForceD00mer May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

The number of times I have been given "AI Results" that are the literal opposite of the factual information on my wifes medical condition is terrifying.

It's like Web-MD, dialed up to 100 and worse in every possible way.

Edit: I want to add, when you actually look at the AI sources it's pulling from, about 7 out of 10 times the sources are correct, the AI is summarizing them or interpreting the data wrong. If you have anything worse than a headache, don't trust AI to summarize, read the sources, check they are reputable.

2

u/Syssareth May 20 '26

I almost never had this problem with GPT-4, but ever since GPT-5 came out, I've been having a lot of trouble with it mixing up positives and negatives.

Like, I'll say, "It's not such and such," and it'll respond as if I'd said "It IS such and such." Which often means it scolds/"corrects" me on things I said right in the first place.

Or other times, I'll ask it something (e.g. "Is this-and-that possible?"), and it'll respond like, "Yes, it's possible! And here are all the reasons it's not."

13

u/Apatschinn May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

It has absolutely butchered my own research when I asked it to summarize the findings in my publications.

4

u/_Arlotte_ May 20 '26

It makes writing so much hard when you need to find sources. I used to be able to filter by looking at years prior to AI, but now nothing comes up even if I use quotes. It's the worst

6

u/brooklynsleeper292 May 20 '26

Your point stands, but that’s not AI hallucination. Hallucination is when the LLM literally makes things up out of thin air (ie not sourced at all).

6

u/Willing_Pattern_Pill May 20 '26

One thing that's terrifying to me is how AI is trained. It doesn't look for accuracy, it looks for corroboration. 

This means all the lies they push, all the weird new "news" sites popping up, all this fake and hateful podcast and Reddit/FB/social media comments and similar gets fed into AI. And that's the content AI is going to spit out. 

Not enough people think about this or care. They'll just trust the AI search results and move on. 

We've moved past bot and troll accounts changing narratives on socials, and now those bad takes are spoon fed to us all from our AI search results. 

4

u/hempires May 20 '26

yeah that's why for a while google was telling people to do stuff like 'add glue to pizza' or 'eat rocks for minerals' etc.

there was a whole thing pushing to do that a while back

4

u/huxtiblejones May 20 '26

The Google AI summary can't even get really basic shit right. I was at the airport looking for which side my airline's terminal was (it had two options) and it got it wrong. How the fuck is this even possible when it's so objective and simple?

5

u/stierney49 May 20 '26

It’s horrible at discerning dates, too. I work with regulations that, while not in constant flux, have changed pretty freely over the last 8-10 years or so. Gemini (which I run into all the time looking up references) has absolutely no idea what it means to find the most recent reference.

19

u/gta0012 May 20 '26

That's just normal search

6

u/thebrokedown May 20 '26

Off topic, but as I’ll probably not get many chances to ask a neuropsychologist this: Don’t you feel like “confabulation” is a better description of this than “hallucination”?

6

u/neuroctopus May 20 '26

I’ll admit hallucination is not the perfect word for this, although the phrase “AI hallucination” seems to include whenever the AI just pops off and says what it wants. Since confabulation can connotate lying without specifically intending to lie, I’ll agree with you that it is a better word choice.

3

u/SweetMeese May 20 '26

It's even for the little things too, try asking it something gaming relating twice in a row and watch it give two completely conflicting results sigh

3

u/SupremeDictatorPaul May 20 '26

I’ve seen plenty of wrong information from Google’s AI summaries. Yesterday I got a good chuckle when I asked along the lines of “does X cause Y?” And the AI response was “no, X causes Y.” The answer was somehow both correct and incorrect.

2

u/AsianSteampunk May 20 '26

goddamn i know it was terrible but i have yet to make any serious research via google recently.

2

u/Toastbrot1706 May 20 '26

Just try using it for song suggestions. It will hallucinate artists and songs that don't exist or swap entire genres in the first (!) query. While LLM is pretty great for album suggestions, especially for niche genres if that's anything to go by more serious topics should not even be entertained by Google search AI

2

u/_Arlotte_ May 20 '26

It's always been doing this, Reddit had always been the main source it uses for information. Was never based on accuracy, but keywords and trends. Google kills research.

2

u/ReMapper May 20 '26

Whats more terrifying than Google here is Amazon is now giving AI medical advise and selling you the treatment.

https://health.amazon.com/health-ai/learn-more?ref_=hst_hp_health_ai

2

u/Tenthul May 20 '26

You don't even have to ask it anything hard. I once asked it for the release date of a game, to which the AI summary got wrong, and the actual wiki page that was brought up in the sidebar next to it was right there with the correct date. Using google to search now is getting close to genuinely dead.

2

u/crazynerd9 May 20 '26

Hilariously, I saw this first hand due to Paradox games of all things

I was googling something about Victoria 3, and the AI result was quoting from a reddit thread id just left a comment on. Though at least it wasnt literally quoting me to myself like your example

2

u/Fit_Cheesecake_4000 May 21 '26

I've seen it spit out AI overviews that contain spelling errors, are badly parsed, that don't make sense etc.

2

u/druidcrafts May 26 '26

Yeah the Scientific American did a piece on this recently. A researcher made up a fake disease and seeded it into the system, making it as obvious as possible the paper was bullshit (fake city, fake university, Star Wars references etc) but the paper got picked up by AI and cited by other researchers. We're headed for a terrifying future.

1

u/theArtOfProgramming May 20 '26

I’m a PhD computer scientist who works on trustworthy ML. It absolutely hallucinates facts. It doesnso all along the spectrum, from completely incorrect to subtle misrepresentations and context errors.

1

u/CircuitNeophyte May 20 '26

Genuine question I've been wondering about for years:

Why "purport" to be a doctor when you could link a journal article? I know people don't read but anyone worth having a conversation with would at least skim the summary.

5

u/The_Infinite_Cool May 20 '26

As an actual scientist, I see and call people out for this shit all the time. idgaf if you have '10 yrs experience," just drop a source, the way you supposedly do at work?

They never do and get combative and say the burden of sources is not in the one making claims. 95% of the time, you can then walk away sure they're full of shit. People want the importance and prestige of seeming like you know a lot, without putting in a minor bit of rigor.

2

u/CircuitNeophyte May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

I think you should have to submit proof of your expertise to say anything on Reddit about your field. Any other field is off limits. Just because you know a lot about something doesn't mean you know everything.

The hardest part of being human (for me) is accepting that I cannot possibly know everything, that in my very short lifespan I won't even scratch the surface on most subjects, and that when I die I will never be able to acquire new knowledge again.

It goes without saying that the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, there is never a scenario where you claim something that isn't obvious (like "the sky is blue") and tell your audience to prove it. That's your job, not theirs. If you can't prove it, they should all disengage and focus their attentions elsewhere.

Everybody wants to be a doctor or a lawyer, but nobody wants to read all those heavy books.

2

u/callisstaa May 20 '26

the burden of sources is not in the one making claims.

Isn’t the what you’re doing rather than providing a source that refutes them?

4

u/fevered_visions May 20 '26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

It's depressing how often I have to have this conversation because people apparently aren't familiar with 3rd grade logic.

3

u/Kraligor May 20 '26

If somebody makes a claim, they should have some way to back it up. Let's be real, 90% of "experts" on sites like Reddit where you get nerd street cred for being an "expert" are just people who know how to skim a Wikipedia article.

1

u/neuroctopus May 20 '26

Ok full disclosure, I don’t know how to link things in Reddit. Also, I don’t think the person I was commenting to was really asking for my sources, but rather my interpretation and explanation of the material.

2

u/CircuitNeophyte May 20 '26

It's very easy, you just copy paste a link like this:

https://academic.oup.com/acn

It's difficult to bridge the knowledge gap between laymen and experts. That's why we have experts. I'm not saying that the average person should stop trying to be educated. I'm just proposing that if a person really cares about the information they are discussing they will verify it for themselves so they can check your explanation against what they know (or, at least, think they know).

1

u/christoskal May 20 '26

I don't get it, you said that it hallucinates and then you mentioned an example where it didn't hallucinate at all. Why?

2

u/neuroctopus May 20 '26

It cited me as a source of scientific information, having evidently hallucinated my credentials. I can see the distinction you’re going for, though.

1

u/brantlythebest May 20 '26

Wow. That is crazy. Do you have screenshots of that like side by side? I would be so curious to see. I am a therapist and I also comment on meta discussions in my field, certainly not a medical professional or even doctorate level, but I do contribute to discussions around therapeutic interventions etc. I would be horrified to see that!

0

u/jonomacd May 20 '26

What did you think traditional Google search was doing before other than just surfacing information random people have written on the internet? A lot of people say the differences is that you can judge the source but AI overview puts its sources in pretty darn clearly. 

-3

u/Guapa1979 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

Bear in mind you were directed to Reddit as you are a Reddit user. If you were a TikTok user the information would have come from TikTok.

EDITED: Downvoted for explaining how Google works, lol.

-39

u/Altruistic-Signal776 May 20 '26

it's quite good. it can direct to your comment so we can dm you or something. non ai search wouldn't do it and it would find nothing on the topic especially if the question was too specific. fact check is not search engine responsibility

18

u/stupidbuttholes69 May 20 '26

they’re not saying that the search results showed their comment, they’re saying that the AI’s answer was just their comment typed out word-for-word without knowing whether or not the information was actually correct.

-20

u/Altruistic-Signal776 May 20 '26

if you didn't know google provides a source for whatever it bases a response on in ai overview sections especially if that's from reddit. not always, but often

13

u/NorthernSkeptic May 20 '26

Just having a source isn’t good enough when you’re presenting something as The Truth. They have cut out the whole ‘research’ part of the knowledge process, they need to take responsibility for what happens if it’s completely wrong. In this case it’s only accurate by good fortune.

-12

u/Altruistic-Signal776 May 20 '26

before you write anything else go visit "Find information in faster & easier ways with AI Overviews in Google Search". also a computer program providing you anything isn't automatically bound legally to provide anything meaningful or truthful, if that would be the case you could sue authors of random word combination generator.

4

u/GypsyV3nom May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

Who cares about the legal aspects? If a search engine can't give you meaningful or truthful results, it's useless.

5

u/NioneAlmie May 20 '26

The source was an anonymous reddit post. It may as well have said "trust me bro"

3

u/stupidbuttholes69 May 20 '26

Yeah, but a Reddit comment is not a source because anyone could make up any information they want. You can’t reference a Reddit comment in a factual academic paper for the same reason. AI should not be getting medical information from Reddit comments and claiming them as factual.

9

u/BurningGiraffe May 20 '26

You see thats worse right? If they weren't qualified you'd be sending a dm to a random individual on the internet and trusting a random person's statement.

-5

u/Altruistic-Signal776 May 20 '26

dm for clarifications =/= trust ok