It's worse because they're often more confident in the AI output than they ever were of the google results, and the results are not-infrequently-enough so bad that no human would have made that error. When they do doubt, they can ask, and the AI will often defend its dumb position -- especially when they explicitly ask it to counter the rebuttal they received.
Skepticism also seems to be reduced because we're armored against people telling us lies in their own self interest and against ours, while AI will make stuff up that benefits no one. (And even where it could benefit someone, people assume the AI isn't trying to benefit itself).
It always seemed odd how willing people are to defer to internet randos who are obviously out of their depth.
Of course, you also have to identify which experts are trustworthy. This is an important skill to have.
A non-expert must rely on at least two things to do this. The first are external signals, like financial associations and a record of making unpopular criticisms (but without being a contrarian or aiming for sensationalism), as well as reputational factors (not popularity, but a reputation for making strong cases).
The second is the basic coherence of their claims. If they make remarks that contradict basic reality, then this is not a good sign.
And of course, you have to be prudential and recognize your own limits.
These are probabilistic, naturally, and there is an expected divergence of opinion here, even between what you thought yesterday and what you think today.
Look, I think I made my only point in the parent comment, but I just want to emphasize that "a panel of actual experts" is rarely the compliment that you seem to think it is.
The past few years have been a veritable parade of experts saying inaccurate things, and/or being proven hilariously wrong in a variety of domains. I'm not saying that this isn't a hard problem -- it is -- but the fact is that "expert" is not a get-out-of-thinking-free card. It is, at best, a slightly higher weighted input amongst all others.
Yeah, anyone working in any field for some amount of time is an "expert" in that field. Yet, finding 2 software engineers with differing opinions on a topic is trivial. Finding 1 making provably wrong statements on a topic is nearly as easy.
They hold more weight than the average person, but it doesn't make them right by default.
I've absolutely heard a published psychologist claim at a "science festival" that anyone lending any credit to any conspiracy theory is an uneducated idiot (but it's not their fault).
She put flat earth, reptilians and queen had diana killed on the same level. I guess gladio too?
I mean kings historically have had lots of people killed. Certainly I can't know if that's what happened, but it's at least possible (unlike flat earth).
Also she didn't take questions from the audience, in the spirit of science.