AI overviews: why????

[jjohnwm]

Every time I do a Google search, the very first response is an "AI overview", which according to Google is designed to all the hard work for me. "Hard word" is apparently what people consider they are doing when they are forced to type a couple of words and then scan a list of results before deciding to read any. Sounds exhausting, I know.

The AI overview instead provides a distillation of numerous results, so you don't have to decide what to believe. You just place your faith in Google, and they do all the thinking for you. What a relief!

Except...at the bottom of every AI overview, there is that niggling little warning in small letters: "AI overviews may contain mistakes".

So...Google is saying "Leave it to us. We'll do the work and the research, and all you have to do is slurp it up out of the trough and carry on!"...but they also are saying, rather quietly "You can't trust a thing you read here, but it's not our fault!"

Try Googling something with which you are extremely familiar. Read the AI overview. You will be astonished to see not only simple mistakes, but glaring inaccuracies which can, at best, lead you down endless dead ends and wrong paths. At worst, they can trick you into doing things that can be downright dangerous. And if you listen to them, and wind up getting a boo-boo or breaking something expensive, you can't come back at them because they'll just say "Hey...you can't trust what we say...and we told you that up front!"

The really sad thing is seeing how many people come onto a discussion site like MFK or others, read a question posted by someone else, and then immediately dive into their computer to come up with an answer for that person. ChatGPT (correct letters?...don't know, don't really care...) seems to be a popular one right now. We have people post on question threads with answers that they freely admit come from that source.

Why? Don't you think that the OP asking the question was capable of looking on the internet at ChatGPT or Google or whatever else? Does it not seem likely that they are looking for a human being to answer their question, preferably from personal experience with the subject matter? How does regurgitating this crap for them assist them in any way?

Not too long ago, such posts were often prefaced with comments like "To my knowledge..." or "As far as I know..." or other phrases which could usually be interpreted as "I don't have a clue, but here's what other people who don't have a clue are saying". I'm not seeing that as much anymore, just lots of admissions that "ChatGPT is the source of this nonsense so don't blame me if it's 100% BS".

Anybody seen the Rick and Morty episode where Rick conjures up Mr. Meeseeks? Mr. Meeseeks exists only to fulfill a function that he is asked to fulfill by his conjuror. After that he ceases to exist, which is what he most fervently wants.

The only difference is...the ChatGPT-ers or Googlists or whatever we should call them...don't cease to exist after fulfilling (what they perceive to be) their function. They just scamper off to "help" someone else...

 

[tlindsey]

AI overviews may contain mistakes".

I thought AI was the ultimate of intelligence. After I seen that I just skip AI answer and do my own research.

 

[Cal Amari]

Well, unless the pay to play versions, or private corporate versions are much better than the Google overview, I have no concern that this technology will eventually wipe us out or enslave the human race. I'm suspicious of most online resources to start with, doubly so for any versions that have been prescreened and summarized for me, whether by people in a care sheet or article, or by these ai programs.

But if you want to test it out, don't just ask it questions, you need to ask it questions you already know the answers to. Like some young children, or door to door salespeople, it will confidently and quickly answer your question, with any number of falsehoods, made up information to fill in the gaps, or information adjacent to that which you assked, often without even hinting at the real answer. I found this out because I read more than I can remember, and I often read something that jogs a memory of something else, and so I've tried quick searches of like " in the book "If It Bleeds" what are the books the professor taught in the same semester?" Now this is a bit tricky because the book is a collection of a few short stories, but there is still only 1 professor mentioned who teaches specific books. The answers came back with character names from other stories in the book, answers saying the professor isn't teaching books, but writing a book, and so on and so forth. Finally I got out a hard copy of the book scanned through to the right story, and skimmed until I found the answer, The professor actually taught "infinite Jest" and "Under the Volcano" in the same semester. right there in print, published, and available on audio. Just 1 example, but similar attempts have come up with similar doubt inducing answers.

 

[danotaylor]

jjohnwm beautifully articulated my human friend! The depth and breadth of your description is so far beyond the capabilities of AI generated responses. I appreciate your valuable, relevant, and often humorous contributions to forum life. ChatGPT I can do without, but you sir are a keeper!

 

[Chet E.]

The AI overview instead provides a distillation of numerous results,

Therein is the root of bother, the abbreviated list of results denies the opportunity for "research".
.
Yes, I tried, "who wrote Old McDonald Had a Farm?" Without knowing it's the biography Angus wrote of his father, Jim (the "Old Man"), good luck.
.
Not only the presumption of what I'm looking for and convenient synopsis, but my spelling is autocorrected too. Yea!