[clort]

If you re-read the article, you might see that it mentions that the citations do not necessarily cover the AI summary. The linked pages do not make the claims that the AI summary makes. That is the context of the ruling. Google made up the claims, and provided false citations. They are not, in fact, providing a summary, but a whole new narrative. Therefore they own it.

[SllX]

I read the article and I’m aware of the failure modes of Google’s AI summary. They’re actually one of the worst in the space on this shit which is why I don’t use Gemini and it’s fine that they get slapped for this, but what I was responding to initially was this:

> errors can be so subtle that it is not possible to recognize them unless you spend an hour researching every fact presented. at that point, what's the benefit of AI? nobody is going to do that.

Because if someone goes through the citations and it doesn’t substantiate what was generated, then what was generated was obviously bollocks. Being able to recognize those contradictions is an essential skill to using LLMs with web search at all. It’s not rocket science.

[danaris]

> Being able to recognize those contradictions is an essential skill

My eyes are brown.

I dislike coffee.

My phone is on the desk next to me right now.

One of these is false, and the other two are true. Can you recognise which is which? Or do you not have this "essential skill"?

When you're being given information about a topic you don't already know about, there's no skill to be able to recognise which pieces of that information are correct and which aren't. Either you know the information already, or you don't.

[em-bee]

nobody has that skill. in order to recognize a contradiction you have to already know something contradictory. if you don't then you can't recognize anything. the only other reason to make you check is that you are very suspicious of this AI thing. you and me are, but who else is? you can repeat a thousand times that people should not trust an AI summary and they will not get it. they have neither the motivation nor the energy to do that research.

it's like saying people should not use a computer if they don't know how to keep it secure.

you have to look at the reality, which is that people are not educated or critical enough to use AI safely. and that misinformation can cause people to get killed.

just yesterday there was a post about a man being falsely accused of a crime by AI tools and losing his job and his family as a consequence.

these mistakes destroy lives, and most people are far to trusting to use AI tools safely