Comment on AI search finds publishers starved of referral traffic
brsrklf@jlai.lu 2 days ago
Given how wrong/ridiculously oversimplified those AI summaries usually are, it scares me that so many people would stop there like, “Ehh, good enough”.
Comment on AI search finds publishers starved of referral traffic
brsrklf@jlai.lu 2 days ago
Given how wrong/ridiculously oversimplified those AI summaries usually are, it scares me that so many people would stop there like, “Ehh, good enough”.
MagicShel@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
A lot of my queries only call for oversimplified summaries. Either I’m simple like that or I google stupid shoot no one else would bother. A recent example:
Are there butterflies or moths that don’t have mouths? (No but some have vestigial mouths connected to non-functioning digestive systems.) Good enough!
That said, I’m very skeptical about answers if it’s anything I care about or need to act on.
brsrklf@jlai.lu 2 days ago
The AI answer mostly just parrots whatever the site that has won the referencement war is spewing. If it’s easy enough, it can luck out and find an easy ready answer on wikipedia or something. Beyond that, most of those high referenced sites are the shitty aggregators that already pollute the search results.
I often search for the correct way to do do something. For example, there’s a lot of baseless bullshit in gardening. If there wasn’t an AI answer, I would not trust the first result and stop there, I would look for a few, check what sources they have. I would not even take the wikipedia answer at face value without at least confirming where they got their info.
We know AI doesn’t do that. We have examples of it not even recognizing obvious parody, it can’t be trusted with recognizing unsourced shit.