|
Top-level
@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. 5 comments
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. |
Gregory's Server
@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.