[ndsipa_pomu]

No, Google search was simply repeating quotes from other websites - those other websites would be responsible for their content. Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM, they are responsible for whatever results that produces.

[boringg]

Were the websites actually held responsible though?

[9rx]

> Now that Google is manufacturing answers

There isn't someone at a keyboard typing content. It's still just search, repeating quotes from other websites. The difference is that the algorithms have turned lossy, so the quotes are not always preserved in their original form.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Obviously, I understand that and maybe you shouldn't have cut short the quote from my comment as that demonstrates exactly and precisely what is going on.

i.e.

> Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM

To be honest, I find it somewhat rude that you select a portion of what I wrote and then criticise it.

[9rx]

Equally obvious is that it doesn't matter what you do or don't understand. Nor does it matter if you find something to be rude. The comments, they are not written for anyone in particular. This is a public forum. Comments are there for all.

[JamesSwift]

Look... its clear you didnt read the article. The point of contention is that google _hallucinated_ facts. As in, website 1 said company A exists and website 2 said company B committed a crime and now googles AI summary says company A committed a crime while linking website 1 and 2.

The court found google to be liable for that, because company A has no other recourse otherwise. Which website operator was the company supposed to contact to remove this "false" information? It only exists in the aether of google search results, and only as a side effect of them adding functionality into that when someone is searching.