Basic problem with Google's AI is that it never says "you can't" or "I don't know". So many times it comes up with plausible-sounding incorrect BS to "how to" questions. E.g., "in a facebook group how do you whitelist posts from certain users?" The answer is "you can't", but AI won't tell you.
Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
71–80 of 214 posts
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#72Google AI cannot be trusted for medical adivice. It has killed before and it will kill again.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#73I've also noticed lately that it is parroting a lot of content straight from reddit, usually the answer it gives is directly above the reddit link leading to the same discussion.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being dismissive, though. There is no "original knowledge" anywhere. If the videos are the best presentation of the information, best suited to convey the topic to the audience, then that is valuable. Humans learn better from visual information conveyed at the same time as spoken language, because that exploits multiple independent brain functions at the same time. Reading does not have this property. Particu…
I think you've never read real investigative journalism before
We live in an era where people lack the ability to read and digest written content and rely on someone speaking to them about it instead.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Oh, you mean like removing scores of covid videos from real doctors and scientists which were deemed to be misinformation The credentials don't matter, the actual content does. And if it's misinformation, then yes, you can be a quadruple doctor, it's still misinformation. In France, there was a real doctor, epidemiologist, who became famous because he was pushing a cure for Covid. He did some underground, barely le…
How is any non-expert supposed to judge the content without some kind of guide like say credentials? Credentials do matter when the author is unknown.
A good first step would be to distrust each and every individual. This excludes every blog, every non-peer-reviewed paper, every self-published book, pretty much every YouTube channel and so on. This isn't to say you can't find a nugget of truth somewhere in there, but you shouldn't trust yourself to be able to differentiate between that nugget of truth and everything surrounding it.
Even most well-intentioned and best-credentialed individuals have blind spots that only a different pair of eyes can spot through rigorous editing. Rigorous editing only happens in serious organizations, so a good first step would be to ignore every publication that doesn't at the very least have an easy-to-find impressum with a publicly-listed editor-in-chief.
The next step would be to never blame the people listed as writers, but their editors. For example, if a shitty article makes it way to a Nature journal, it's the editor that is responsible for letting it through. Good editorial team is what builds up the reputation of a publication, people below them (that do most of the work) are largely irrelevant.
To go back to this example, you should ignore this guy's shitty study before it's published by a professional journal. Even if it got published in a serious journal, that doesn't guarantee it's The Truth, only that it has passed some level of scrutiny it wouldn't have otherwise.
Like for example website uptime, no editorial team is capable of claiming 100% of the works that passed through their hands is The Truth, so then you need to look at how transparently they're dealing with mistakes (AKA retractions), and so on.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is any non-expert supposed to judge the content without some kind of guide like say credentials? Credentials do matter when the author is unknown.
Separating credentialed but bad faith covid grift from evolving legitimate medical advice based on the best information available at the time did not require anything but common sense and freedom from control by demagoguery.
And when I'm nice and relaxed, my common sense is fully operational. I'm pretty good at researching medical topics that do not affect me! However, as soon as it's both relevant to me, and urgent, I become extremely incapable of distinguishing truthful information from blatant malpractice. At this point, I default to extreme scepticism, and generally do nothing about the urgent medical problem.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#77It’s slop all the way down. Garbage In Garbage Out.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've never read real investigative journalism before
We live in an era where people lack the ability to read and digest written content and rely on someone speaking to them about it instead.
It's a step beyond that. Where people who only consume the easily digestible content don't believe there is a source to any of it
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#79Heavy Gemini user here, another observation: Gemini cites lots of "AI generated" videos as its primary source, which creates a closed loop and has the potential to debase shared reality. A few days ago, I asked it some questions on Russia's industrial base and military hardware manufacturing capability, and it wrote a very convincing response, except the video embedded at the end of the response was an AI generated o…
I think we hit peak AI improvement velocity sometime mid last year. The reality is all progress was made using a huge backlog of public data. There will never be 20+ years of authentic data dumped on the web again.
I've hoped against but suspected that as time goes on LLMs will become increasingly poisoned by the the well of the closed loop. I don't think most companies can resist the allure of more free data as bitter as it may taste.
Gemini has been co opted as a way to boost youtube views. It refuses to stop showing you videos no matter what you do.
Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries
#80Sounds very misleading. Web pages come from many sources, but most video is hosted on YouTube. Those YouTube videos may still be from Mayo clinic. It's like saying most medical information comes from Apache, Nginx, or IIS.
Might be but aren't. They're inevitably someone I've never heard of from no recognizable organization. If they have credentials, they are invisible to me.
Definitely. The analysis is really lazy garbage. It lumps together quality information and wackos as "youtube.com".