|
Top-level
 @WhyNotZoidberg @jonoleth @abrokenjester @paninid How do you wish, without AI, that Google classifies the internet into fiction and non-fiction? The screenshot isn't even of AI. It's of the knowledge graph. Noticed it doesn't say AI anywhere on it? Google has done this for years. 10 comments
@WhyNotZoidberg @jonoleth @abrokenjester @paninid Sorry you wanted the world's information to be classified into what's true and what's not true. It seemed simple when you suggested it. Disinformation is the biggest threat to humanity as we speak. Even if this particular search result wasn't a result of Googles abysmal AI, Google has admitted publicly that there is no way of making it stop making things up and present it as fact... and they are FINE with that. @WhyNotZoidberg Thanks for repeating that to me instead of backing your original position that Google should be the arbiter of truth. @jenzi @WhyNotZoidberg No one said that in this thread except you . What everyone here claims is that without a clear source, there is no way a user can distinguish between truth and fiction. Google now presents results as paragraphs that looks like they are valid answers but there's no way of knowing if they are true or not. It is not Google who has to be the arbiter of truth. It is the user. Google is removing that possibility. @delawen but you can click the source… you’re being weird EDIT: You're being emotional and rallying against AI when it's not even in use here and the source is right there in the screenshot. You're mad at me for not grabbing a pitchfork. The original post is misleading and wrong. And yes, originally someone asked for things to be deprioritized if it's fiction and that's not even trivial. @jenzi @WhyNotZoidberg @jonoleth @abrokenjester @paninid And no, Google hasn't done this for years. The fact that you are confusing the summary some search engines do taking information from reliable sources like Wikipedia with this kind of output only proves further the point that this kind of AI is not suitable/well trained for this use case @delawen @jenzi @WhyNotZoidberg @jonoleth @paninid I won't go into all of that, because it was all meant a bit tongue in cheek originally, but I will say that the source of the snippet is right there, in the screenshot, in big friendly letters, and with a nice link too. Google does plenty of nefarious things, with or without generative AI. This just isn't a particularly good example of it. @delawen @WhyNotZoidberg @jonoleth @abrokenjester @paninid AI summaries are labeled as such. This is not an AI summary. |
Gregory's Server
@jenzi @jonoleth @abrokenjester @paninid
The way desktop Google does it is better at least, it shows the source on top, which is the most important thing.
As for classifying... Seeing the track record of public not exceptionally specialized AI (like in search for cancer cells) I wouldn't trust an AI classifying anything, to be honest. It would be worse than having it non-classified.