Google AI making up recalls that didn’t happen

You're giving humans too much in the sense of intelligence...there are people who literally drove in lakes because a GPS told them to..

Yes its totally ok to reuse fish tank tubing for grammy’s oxygen mask

How else are the toppings supposed to stay in place?

They give zero fucks about their customers, they just want to pump that stock price so their RSUs vest.

This stuff could give you incurable highly viral brain cancer that would eliminate the human race and they'd spend millions killing the evidence.

True, and it's excellent at generating basic lists of things. But you need a human to actually direct it.

Having Google just generate whatever text is like just mashing the keys on a typewriter. You have tons of perfectly formed letters that mean nothing. They make no sense because a human isn't guiding them.

I mean, it does learn, it just lacks reasoning, common sense or rationality.
What it learns is what words should come next, with a very complex a nuanced way if deciding that can very plausibly mimic the things that it lacks, since the best sequence of next-words is very often coincidentally reasoned, rational or demonstrating common sense. Sometimes it's just lies that fit with the form of a good answer though.

I've seen some people work on using it the right way, and it actually makes sense. It's good at understanding what people are saying, and what type of response would fit best. So you let it decide that, and give it the ability to direct people to the information they're looking for, without actually trying to reason about anything. It doesn't know what your monthly sales average is, but it does know that a chart of data from the sales system filtered to your user, specific product and time range is a good response in this situation.

The only issue for Google insisting on jamming it into the search results is that their entire product was already just providing pointers to the "right" data.

What they should have done was left the "information summary" stuff to their role as "quick fact" lookup and only let it look at Wikipedia and curated lists of trusted sources (mayo clinic, CDC, national Park service, etc), and then given it the ability to ask clarifying questions about searches, like "are you looking for product recalls, or recall as a product feature?" which would then disambiguate the query.

They’re going to fight tooth and nail to do the usual: remove any responsibility for what their AI says and does but do everything they can to keep the money any AI error generates.

Tough question. I doubt it though. I would guess they would have to prove mal intent in some form. When a person slanders someone they use a preformed bias to promote oneself while hurting another intentionally. While you can argue the learned data contained a bias, it promotes itself by being a constant source of information that users can draw from and therefore make money and it would in theory be hurting the company. Did the llm intentionally try to hurt the company would be the last bump. They all have holes. If I were a judge/jury and you gave me the decisions I would say it isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

Slander/libel nothing. It's going to end up killing someone.

Maybe they actually hate the idea of LLMs and are trying to sour the public's opinion on it to kill it.

I probably have it blocked somewhere on my desktop, because it never happens on my desktop, but it happens on my Pixel 4a pretty regularly.

&udm=14 baybee

I get them pretty regularly using the Google search app on my android.

Well to be fair the OP has the date shown in the image as Apr 23, and Google has been frantically changing the way the tool works on a regular basis for months, so there's a chance they resolved this insanity in the interim. The post itself is just ragebait.

*not to say that Google isn't doing a bunch of dumb shit lately, I just don't see this particular post from over a month ago as being as rage inducing as some others in the community.

There are also AI poisoners for images and audio data

Personally, that's exactly what's happening to me. I've seen enough that AI can't be trusted to give a correct answer, so I don't use it for anything important. It's a novelty like Siri and Google Assistant were when they first came out (and honestly still are) where the best use for them is to get them to tell a joke or give you very narrow trivia information.

There must be a lot of people who are thinking the same. AI currently feels unhelpful and wrong, we'll see if it just becomes another passing fad.

To be fair, you should fact check everything you read on the internet, no matter the source (though I admit that's getting more difficult in this era of shitty search engines). AI can be a very powerful knowledge-acquiring tool if you take everything it tells you with a grain of salt, just like with everything else.

This is one of the reasons why I only use AI implementations that cite their sources (edit: not Google's), cause you can just check the source it used and see for yourself how much is accurate, and how much is hallucinated bullshit. Hell, I've had AI cite an AI generated webpage as its source on far too many occasions.

Going back to what I said at the start, have you ever read an article or watched a video on a subject you're knowledgeable about, just for fun to count the number of inaccuracies in the content? Real eye-opening shit. Even before the age of AI language models, misinformation was everywhere online.

will have a widespread impact on how people perceive AI

Here's hoping.

This is definitely different from using Dall-E to make funny images. I'm on a thread in another forum that is (mostly) dedicated to AI images of Godzilla in silly situations and doing silly things. No one is going to take any advice from that thread apart from "making Godzilla do silly things is amusing and worth a try."

I wish infoseek was still around

Like a decade ago?

I think it's because what Google is doing is just ChatGPT with extra steps. Instead of just letting the AI generate answers based on curated training data, they trained it and then gave it a mission to summarize the contents of their list of unreliable sources.

Not yet! But you can make a difference to that... https://yacy.net/

Because lies require intent to deceive, which the AI cannot have.

They merely predict the most likely thing that should next be said, so "hallucinations" is a fairly accurate description

It's not lying or hallucinating. It's describing exactly what it found in search results. There's an web page with that title from that date. Now the problem is that the web page is pinterest and the title is the result of aggressive SEO. These types of SEO practices are what made Google largely useless for the past several years and an AI that is based on these useless results will be just as useless.

The most damning thing to call it is “inaccurate”. Nothing will drive the average person away from a companies information gathering products faster than associating it with being inaccurate more times than not. That is why they are inventing different things to call it. It sounds less bad to say “my LLM hallucinates sometimes” than it does to say “my LLM is inaccurate sometimes“.

This feels like something you should go tell Google about rather than the rest of us. They're the ones who have embedded LLM-generated answers to random search queries.