[inigyou]

That's how they get you. They are trained to make you like them. They are not trained to convey true information.

[steveBK123]

Yes, they are at best misleading and often just present dangerously incomplete or misdirecting information. The more you know about a topic the more appalling the summary.

I check variations of this search every month and it still fails at a reasonably high rate https://imgur.com/a/tKSQuA3

[d4v3]

Can you elaborate? Are they not toxic? Are they toxic, but the chemical analysis wrong?

[steveBK123]

If you asked your wife "is it ok if I did X" and she said "YES, its not ok to do that.." would that be normal behavior?

[d4v3]

Ah I see now. Maybe my brain translated the question implicitly to "Are mums poisonous to cats?". I'm tempted to say it's a minor quibble, but on the other hand, there are probably a good deal of people who may stop reading after "Yes"

[steveBK123]

Right and someone in a hurry quickly checking their phone may read the affirmative response as an OK.

It's worse on mobile with large text in my example - https://imgur.com/a/wvNspMT

Imagine your parents asking about a drug combination using an old iPhone SE with large text enabled.

"is zazzafraz and banza ok"

Yes zazzafraz (long scientific name 1) and banza

(long scientifgic name 2) are toxic in combination

[fragmede]

That's interesting. "mums good for cats" and a "mums bad for cats" gives the expected response, it's just "okay" being parsed funny. I've reported it to someone at Google so it'll get fixed... eventually.

[steveBK123]

Replacing “okay” with “safe” also fails

https://imgur.com/a/PgCzK1H

Kind of unbelievable 4 years into this hype cycle we still have basic issues like answering the inverse of users question

[steveBK123]

It's also very non-deterministic. Not a 100% failure rate, seems to go up&down with time, and varies depending on plant/animal combination