[mort96]

We fact check search engine results all the time. But most of the time, such fact checking is in the form of looking at a result, considering whether it seems like a credible source, seeing if multiple credible-seeming results have the same answer, etc.

Getting a completely untrustworthy, unsourced response seems worse than useless. Google has been going this way for a while, with its instant answers or whatever, but at least those try to cite a search result and you can read the surrounding context which Google got the result from.

[add-sub-mul-div]

We're slow-motion singing on to a future with a fundamental shift to receiving information in a completely opaque manner.

A few sources will control the information we get in a much more direct and extreme way than now, that conscious skepticism will no longer be able to defend. Whatever handwaved promises we get now will be gone ten years from now.

If there wasn't such a gee-whiz coolness factor about conversational search results distracting us, we'd never tolerate that in principle.

[pphysch]

> We're slow-motion singing on to a future with a fundamental shift to receiving information in a completely opaque manner.

There's nothing fundamentally new about this. The average person is blissfully unaware of the conversations being had between powerful individuals, PR experts, producers, and so on about how said person should be manipulated.

[amatecha]

I pretty much have this ever-present aura of "citation needed" floating around in my head when I listen to people speak. Any kind of news/press thing, politician speaking (lol), or just anyone trying to claim/assert anything -- I can feel nothing but "citation needed" until they provide some kind of supporting evidence. I feel like people expend a shocking amount of energy proclaiming things they literally do not know with even the slightest degree of certainty - they saw it on some guy's sensational YouTube video and repeat it uncritically. The fatigue is real.

[pphysch]

Even a citation is insufficient nowadays. They will cite a "reputable" source like NYT, which in turn cites "an anonymous intelligence official", and so on. Unverifiable.

Misinformation and manufactured narratives are omnipresent and all we can do is consume as diverse a media diet as possible and develop a good nose for bullsh*t.

[dougmwne]

Oh please. As if the reputation of any news outlet even matters anymore. They all fired their real journalists and fact checkers long ago. Everything you read is full of inaccuracies, agenda pushing and misinformation. If you think it doesn’t, you’ve been had.

[spindle]

That's true of (commercial) news outlets. It doesn't apply to "everything you read". There are many ways to check facts that don't rely on news outlets, at least for people who have time and resources.

[dougmwne]

But relevant to the topic at hand, do any of those sources regularly make it onto the search engine results page? Is the quality of Forbes, Cnet, Reddit, Wikipedia and Quora clearly better than these AI generated responses in some way?

I know there are expert vetted information sources, but you generally have to pay for the quality and they do not get linked to from Bing and Google.

[somenameforme]

I don't know exactly what he was referencing but the easiest way to verify the authenticity of points on issues where there tend to be two sides saying mutually incompatible things is to look at the overlap of what they both say is true. That is going to usually be true. And all it takes to find that is to look at sources for both sides.

Expert vetting doesn't even touch the underlying problem, because the pursuit is not expertise, in and of itself, but objectivity. And that's something far scarcer than expertise, and increasingly fleeting in today's world. A Chinese expert is probably going to have a different perspective on e.g. the Uyghurs than an America expert on such, even if both are in no way trying to mislead but giving their most sincere analysis of the situation.

Even on topics that are not conventionally controversial, you'll find a similar issue. Ask two astrophysicists of different worldviews on dark matter, and you are going to get two very different answers that, in many ways, will be incompatible. Simply "believing" one over the other doesn't really make any sense, nor does randomly polling astrophysicists and taking that as the definitive truth.

[dougmwne]

This is a great summary of this issues with trying to even determine objective reality. I would say that the simple popular consensus approach is not even that great because there are plenty of things in the past that have had consensus that were later determined to be objectively false.

My point was even a step before this, that even getting the consensus facts correct is a major challenge when the internet is written by children, bored volunteers, mechanical Turk contributors from across the world, adversarial actors, and content producers churning clickbait. Having a professional journalist investigate a topic, then have a separate professional fact-check, and yet another professional edit all for a publication that is trying hard to maintain a reputation and will publish retractions if necessary is all miles better as a starting point for determining truth, but sadly that cultural activity is nearly dead.

[jug]

For the record, the “New Bing” AI results will not be unsourced but with key facts in sentences tagged in Wikipedia style, pointing towards the source URL. Finally, below the reply there will be a domain summary for an overview but where each domain name is clickable to get to the respective articles on said domains.

In this case, Bing AI will operate very differently from ChatGPT.

[whatshisface]

In which case we would expect an LLM-based system to output something like,

"(Fact that isn't true)[Source that does not make that claim but comes close enough that you wouldn't notice it just by skimming]"

leading to even more people thinking it's true than otherwise.

[lmm]

Again this is already something that the human equivalents (low-end PR etc.) do all the time.

[somenameforme]

This is going to get real nasty when you start getting into science of various sorts, where an increasing number of papers, particularly in the social sciences, tend to make extreme and outlandish claims, but then walk them back extensively in the actual paper itself emphasizing it's just a correlation, or otherwise demonstrating an extremely marginal effect.

Yet the media tends to miss the internationally understated nuance and run with the claims at face value, which an LLM will then pick up on and state, "Yes scientists have proven that [x] does cause [y]. [1][2][3][4][5]" That claim then gets repeated elsewhere, and eventually that "elsewhere" goes on to become part of the LLM's new training material where it's basically training off its own output.

It'd be ironic if something that's ideally designed to make the breadth of human knowledgeable more readily available and accessible than ever before, ends up just making society vastly more misinformed than ever before.

[acdha]

Instant answers seem like a cautionary example since Google has gotten a fair amount of flack over the cases where it inaccurately summarized content. I think these services are going to be very interesting to study whether the average person thinks they're more authoritative because they're branded by a huge corporation and whether that'll decline over time as people realize the limitations.

[mort96]

It's weird. I've personally experienced cases where the highlighted instant answer is obviously incorrect and the full context actually claims the opposite of what the excerpt claims, and those kinds of examples circulate around the web pretty frequently, and everyone who has ever tried to ask ChatGPT or similar systems tricky questions should know how AIs just invent stuff when they don't know the real answers.

So why do companies like Microsoft and Google push in this direction? Why are they making the results more and more opaque? You'd hope that they would care enough to be good stewards of the power granted to them through their information monopoly, but barring that, you'd hope that they'd recognize that people want results they can verify, not just random answers.

Or maybe they're hoping that people don't care about verifying results, hoping that people just want an answer that's not necessarily the right answer? It seems like a dangerous gamble.

[acdha]

It really goes back to the toxic incentives of ad sales. Google wants you to stay on Google.com so they get more chances to show ads. They only care about low quality results if it means you stop using them, which for years wasn’t a serious risk but can change relatively quickly if alternatives arise. They should know, given how rapidly they pulled users away from Alta Vista, Yahoo!, et al. 20 years ago.