A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previous limited liability protections for search engine operators don't apply to AI overviews. In this case, Google's AI had falsely linked two publishers to fraud and made claims that didn't appear in any of the linked sources. The ruling could set a precedent for AI-generated content liability worldwide.
I guess you just like being super pedantic because apparently you do know the difference between directory based searches and what came after it. Feel free to argue how yahoo and altavista was fine and the world really didn’t need Google search though.
Tell me what aggregates you are seeing. I have no idea what you are looking at on this page that is suppose to prove your point on accuracy.
Because right now you brought up a benchmark site and then just saying how all benchmarks are skewed. That’s fine and all but can you tell me what you are actually looking at so we can be on the same page??
And again, at 75% or 70%, or whatever you imagine current accuracy is, what happened to all the memes about Gemini telling you to add bleach to pancakes or something? Low hanging karma posts just literally disappeared. Why do you think that is? A google search for “funny gpt answers” brings up results from 2024. Let that sink in.
I imagine it’s quite the burden being so morally superior to the vast majority of humanity.
JFC this is so tiring. I’m trying to explain the issues from a technical point of view and you dismiss all I’m saying like I’m crazy or I don’t know anything about the topic.
I get that you like these summaries because you believe that they make your life easier, but the least you could do is educate yourself, read some books, anything.
You’re trying to explain by ignoring my question regarding your source not once but twice.
And also conveniently ignoring the actual point being made and instead focusing on whether or not its 75% or 85% or what is an algorithm
And also dismissing arguments because its morally beneath you.
I cannot make you understand something you refuse to learn anything about.
But now I get it. Your whole point is that you are so lazy, you are willing to trade accuracy of information and your own privacy, for the convenience of not having to read anything for more than ten seconds straight. I should have known from the moment you so confidently said that “AI is costing [you] nothing”. Sure mate.
Given all that, providing sources and facts from experience has been a waste of time from my part. No more.
No worries though, you won’t need to be intentionally obtuse for longer, outsourcing your thought processes to Google will do that for you, and for free.
You sure are doing a great job helping people understand when you, for the third time, refuse to answer the question about where your source refers to accuracy. You haven’t provided jack.
You sure also sound quite prideful to the fact that this is just about me and my preferences, that you can’t see this is actually how most people view the world.
Tell me, actually answer me here instead of deflecting: Do you really think the world is just stupid? They all use google or Gmail or YouTube or Facebook and dont realize their data is being collected? You think if you just help educate them they will all realize and stop using these services?
I have no worries here. I’m not the one that’s going to fall behind while screaming at the clouds as tech keeps rolling along.
You really believe that asking questions to a chatbot is a skill? Good luck to you then lol