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

121–130 of 214 posts

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

#121

Post by krior »

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…

If you are still looking for material, I'd like to recommend you Perun and the last video he made on that topic: https://youtu.be/w9HTJ5gncaY

Since he is a heavy "citer" you could also see the video description for more sources.

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

#122

Post by danudey »

alex1138 wrote: post #9
jdlyga wrote: post #8

It's tough convincing people that Google AI overviews are often very wrong. People think that if it's displayed so prominently on Google, it must be factually accurate right? "AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more" It's not mistakes, half the time it's completely wrong and total bullshit information. Even comparing it to other AI, if you put the same question into GPT 5.2 or Gemini, you get much more accurate…

It absolutely baffles me they didn't do more work or testing on this. Their (unofficial??) motto is literally Search. That's what they're known for. The fact it's trash is an unbelievably damning indictment of what they are

Testing on what? It produces answers, that's all it's meant to do. Not correct answers or factual answers; just answers.

Every AI company seems to push two points:

1. (Loudly) Our AI can accelerate human learning and understanding and push humanity into a new age of enlightenment.

2. (Fine print) Our AI cannot be relied on for any learning or understanding and it's entirely up to you to figure out if what our AI has confidently told you, and is vehemently arguing is factual, is even remotely correct in any sense whatsoever.

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

#123

Post by ecshafer »

g947o wrote: post #84
sidewndr46 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't really think about it but I start a ton of my prompts with "generate me a single C++ code file" or similar. There's always 2-3 paragraphs of prose in there. Why is it consuming output tokens on generating prose? I just wanted the code.

Didn't expect c++ code generation to be as bad as recipe websites.

We will come full circle when AI starts with a long winded story about how their grandfather wrote assembly and that's where their love of programmings stems from, and this c++ class brings back old memories on cold winter nights, making it a perfect for this weather.

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

#124

Post by ecshafer »

fwip wrote: post #109
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.

This is the best argument for AI sentience yet.

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

#125

Post by contagiousflow »

jeffbee wrote: post #102
contagiousflow wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've never read real investigative journalism before

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

If your takeaway from my comment was "this guy thinks investigative journalism must be written" I would suggest reading the comment again.

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

#127

Post by ajross »

Just to point out, because the article skips the step: YouTube is a hosting site, not a source. Saying that something "cites YouTube" sounds bad, but it depends on what the link is. To be blunt: if Gemini is answering a question about Cancer with a link to a Mayo Clinic video, that's a good thing, a good cite, and what we want it to do.

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

#128

Post by abixb »

krior wrote: post #121
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…

If you are still looking for material, I'd like to recommend you Perun and the last video he made on that topic: https://youtu.be/w9HTJ5gncaY Since he is a heavy "citer" you could also see the video description for more sources.

Thanks, good one. The current Russian economy is a shell of its former self. Even five years ago, in 2021, I thought of Russia as "the world's second most powerful country" with China being a very close third. Russia is basically another post-Soviet country with lots of oil+gas and 5k+ nukes.

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

#129

Post by mrtesthah »

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.

One type of deception, conspiracy content, is able to sell products on the basis that the rest of the world is wrong or hiding something from you, and only the demagogue knows the truth.

Anti-vax quacks rely on this tactic in particular. The reason they attack vaccines is that they are so profoundly effective and universally recognized that to believe otherwise effectively isolates the follower from the vast majority of healthcare professionals, forcing trust and dependency on the demagogue for all their health needs. Mercola built his supplement business on this concept.

The more widespread the idea they’re attacking the more isolating (and hence stickier) the theory. This might be why flat earthers are so dogmatic.

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

#130

Post by IsTom »

danudey wrote: post #117
adrian_b wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has a lot of junk, but there are also a lot of useful videos that demonstrate various practical skills or the experiences of using certain products, or recordings of certain natural environments, which are original, in the sense that before YouTube you could not find equivalent content anywhere, except by knowing personally people who could show you such things, but there would have been very small chances to…

It's difficult for an AI to tell what information from YouTube is correct and reliable and which is pseudoscience, misinformation, or outright lies. In that context, I think excluding YouTube as a source makes sense; not because YT has no useful content, but because it has no way of determining useful content.

Hey, but at least it will know that Raid: Shadow Legends is one of the biggest mobile role-playing games.
Post reply on HN