Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 214 posts

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#101

Post by Oras »

gowld wrote: post #26
xnx wrote: post #7

Sounds 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.

To the Guardian's credit, at the bottom they explicitly cited the researchers walking back their own research claims. > However, the researchers cautioned that these videos represented fewer than 1% of all the YouTube links cited by AI Overviews on health. > “Most of them (24 out of 25) come from medical-related channels like hospitals, clinics and health organisations,” the researchers wrote. “On top of that, 21 of…

Credit? It’s a misleading title and clickbait.

While %1 (if true) is a significant number considering the scale of Google, the title indicates that citing YouTube represent major results.

Also what’s the researcher view history on Google and YouTube? Isn’t that a factor in Google search results?

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#102

Post by jeffbee »

contagiousflow wrote: post #52
jeffbee wrote: post #41

Earlier 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

Imagine claiming that video has not historically been a medium of investigative journalism.

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#103

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

abixb wrote: post #14

Heavy 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…

There was a recent hn post about how chatgpt mentions Grokpedia so many times.

Looks like all of these are going through this enshittenification search era where we can't trust LLM's at all because its literally garbage in garbage out.

Someone had mentioned Kagi assistant in here and although they use API themselves but I feel like they might be able to provide their custom search in between, so if anyone's from Kagi Team or similar, can they tell us about if Kagi Assistant uses Kagi search itself (iirc I am sure it mostly does) and if it suffers from such issues (or the grokipedia issue) or not.

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#104

Post by alex1138 »

morserer wrote: post #11
alex1138 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I respond to this nicely without getting my comment flagged

People don't flag comments because of tone, they flag (and downvote) comments that violate the HN guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). I skimmed your comment history and a ton of your recent comments violate a number of these guidelines. Follow them and you should be able to comment without further issue. Hope this helps.

I do apologize, however with that being said this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46767027 just got flagged

They do flag because of tone, or else outright things that don't fit with their agenda

(What I posted was very substantive)

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#105

Post by thewebguyd »

duskwuff wrote: post #97
gpm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using it as a reference is a high bar not a low bar. The AI videos aren't trying to be accurate. They're put out by propaganda groups as part of a "firehose of falsehood". Not trusting an AI told to lie to you is different than not trusting an AI. Even without that playing a game of broken telephone is a good way to get bad information though. Hence why even reasonably trustworthy AI is not a good reference.

Not that this makes it any better, but a lot of AI videos on YouTube are published with no specific intent beyond capturing ad revenue - they're not meant to deceive, just to make money.

Not just youtube either. With meta & tiktok paying out for "engagement" that means all forms of engagement is good to the creator, not just positive engagement, so these companies are directly encouraging "rage bait" type content and pure propaganda and misinformation because it gets people interacting with the content.

There's no incentive to produce anything of value outside of "whatever will get me the most clicks/like/views/engagement"

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#106

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

wormpilled wrote: post #83
lm28469 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gemini cites lots of "AI generated" videos as its primary source Almost every time for me... an AI generated video, with AI voiceover, AI generated images, always with < 300 views

Conspiracy theory: those long-tail videos are made by them, so they can send you to a "preferable content" page a video (people would rather watch a video than read, etc), which can serve ads.

I mean perhaps, I don't know what lm28469 mentions, perhaps I can test it but I feel like those LLM generated videos would be some days/months old.

If I ask a prompt right now and the video's say 1-4 months old, then the conspiracy theory falls short.

Unless.. Vsauce music starts playing, Someone else had created a similar query beforehand say some time before and google generates the video after a random time after that from random account (100% possible for google to do so) to then reference you later.

Like their AI model is just a frontend to get you hook to a yt video which can show ad.

Hm...

Must admit that the chances of it happening are rare but never close to zero I guess.

Fun conspiracy theory xD

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#107

Post by thewebguyd »

jeffbee wrote: post #33
gumboshoes wrote: post #24

I have permanent prompts in Gemini settings to tell it to never include videos in its answers. Never ever for any reason. Yet of course it always does. Even if I trusted any of the video authors or material - and I don't know them so how can I trust them? - I still don't watch a video that could be text I could read in one-tenth of the time. Text is superior to video 99% of the time in my experience.

That's interesting ... why would you want to wall off and ignore what is undoubtedly one of the largest repositories of knowledge (and trivia and ignorance, but also knowledge) ever assembled? The idea that a person can read and understand an article faster than they can watch a video with the same level of comprehension does not, to me, seem obviously true. If it were true there would be no role for things like univ…

YouTube videos aren't university lecturers, largely. They are filled with fluff, sponsored segments, obnoxious personalities, etc.

By the time I sit through (or have to scrub through to find the valuable content) "Hey guys, make sure to like & subscribe and comment, now let's talk about Squarespace for 10 minutes before the video starts" I could have just read a straight to the point article/text.

Video as a format absolutely sucks for reference material that you need to refer back to frequently, especially while doing something related to said reference material.

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#108

Post by PlatoIsADisease »

josefritzishere wrote: post #72

Google AI cannot be trusted for medical adivice. It has killed before and it will kill again.

Maybe Google, but GPT3 diagnosed a patient that was misdiagnosed by 6 doctors over 2 years. To be fair, 1 out of those 6 doctors should have figured it out. The other 5 were out of their element. Doctor number 7 was married to me and got top 10 most likely diagnosis from GPT3.

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#109

Post by fwip »

gumboshoes wrote: post #24

I have permanent prompts in Gemini settings to tell it to never include videos in its answers. Never ever for any reason. Yet of course it always does. Even if I trusted any of the video authors or material - and I don't know them so how can I trust them? - I still don't watch a video that could be text I could read in one-tenth of the time. Text is superior to video 99% of the time in my experience.

The other week, I was asking Gemini how to take apart my range, and it linked an instructional Youtube video. I clicked on it, only to be instantly rickrolled.

Re: Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries

#110

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

citizenpaul wrote: post #79
abixb wrote: post #14

Heavy 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 bitt…

To be honest for most things probably yea. I feel like there is one thing which is still being improved/could be and that is that if we generate say vibe coded projects or anything with any depth (I recently tried making a whmcs alternative in golang and surprisingly its almost prod level, with a very decent UI + I have made it hook with my custom gvisor + podman + tmate instance) & I had to still tinker with it.

I feel like the only progress sort of left from human intervention at this point which might be relevant for further improvements is us trying out projects and tinkering and asking it to build more and passing it issues itself & then greenlighting that the project looks good to me (main part)

Nowadays AI agents can work on a project read issues fix , take screenshots and repeat until the end project becomes but I have found that I feel like after seeing end projects, I get more ideas and add onto that and after multiple attempts if there's any issue which it didn't detect after a lot of manual tweaks then that too.

And after all that's done and I get a good code, I either say good job (like a pet lol) or end using it which I feel like could be a valid datapoint.

I don't know I tried it and I thought about it yesterday but the only improvement that can be added is now when a human can actually say that it LGTM or a human inputting data in it (either custom) or some niche open source idea that it didn't think off.

Post reply on HN