Live data from Hacker News

Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

theoutline.com

151–160 of 192 posts

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#151

Google is a search engine for finding webpages, not facts. Thats where this "fake" news story should end. This is not a political problem, its a societal one, and you are barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world. It is not authoritative, and anyone who treats it as such, should be educated to the facts of what it is, and is not. Just because…

Thank you. Like me you probably read the article and wondered why blame for the incident instantly bypassed the kid with the phone.

(before someone replies, I know that educating the whole media-consuming public is easier said than done.)

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#152

Calorie counts are another that google often gets wrong. Try "Calories in corn" or "calories in black beans."

Strange. Would imagine that's something that could be obtained from the wikidata api or a similar resource. Is it usually to high or low? I regularly use those info boxes for quick calories information.

Calories should be easy: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#153

Why is it that hard for engineers to rely on good old attribution? If every Google's featured snippet started its reply with "Breitbart says..." or "Trent Online, the leading Internet Newspaper in Nigeria said...", it wouldn't matter so much for those inevitable cases when the reply is taken straight from a white-supremacist or radical anarchist forum. The problem comes when the same reply is provided as "Google's tr…

Well, for example, "According to The Vaccine Research Institution..." Now I just made up that organization. But how can an algorithm tell if it's a legitimate medical institute that develops vaccines or anti-vaxxer propaganda? If the algorithm actually had a way to distinguish the two, it could blacklist bullshit just as easily as it could disclose it.

The problem there is that, at the end of the day, it's a fallible human putting stuff in the "bullshit blacklist". It also means that you're evaluating a statement based on its source rather than its merits, which is.. bad.

When you're the #1 source of information on stuff in the world, that's an awful lot of power that can be trivially abused (e.g. "let's just blacklist unfavorable coverage of this lawsuit against us").

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#154

Google is a search engine for finding webpages, not facts. Thats where this "fake" news story should end. This is not a political problem, its a societal one, and you are barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world. It is not authoritative, and anyone who treats it as such, should be educated to the facts of what it is, and is not. Just because…

> Google is a search engine for finding webpages, not facts. How can you justify that claim? It seems pretty obvious to me that it's trying to be both. Search for "current time utc" and tell me Google is just a search engine for finding webpages.

I admittedly do that - every now and then typing 'time' into google, knowing it goes beyond being a search engine. I also sometimes put in e.g. 'starbucks' and I don't have to qualify the search any further, google knows I want open-close times.

However these snippet boxes, to the computer-savvy at least, are clearly just another automated search result.

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#155
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is a search engine for finding webpages, not facts. How can you justify that claim? It seems pretty obvious to me that it's trying to be both. Search for "current time utc" and tell me Google is just a search engine for finding webpages.

I admittedly do that - every now and then typing 'time' into google, knowing it goes beyond being a search engine. I also sometimes put in e.g. 'starbucks' and I don't have to qualify the search any further, google knows I want open-close times. However these snippet boxes, to the computer-savvy at least, are clearly just another automated search result.

And that is the real issue. I am as to blame as anyone. Whenever a friend or family member needs a computer fixed, or computing thing explained, I have been there to do it for them. We live in a more connected world, full of non-savvy users.

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> once Google figures out that you typed in a question, they want to give you the answer to your question And that's the problem that the article rightfully denounces. Having the answer to every question is not something that you can automate, not without strong AI. > Prepending that is a very bad workaround I strongly disagree; for me it's a very sensible thing to do - and in fact is how we do it in a social context…

> not without strong AI. You might be right if Google wants to answer all questions ever, but they can just limit this feature to situations where they do know what the answer is (you already see this when you type in math, conversions between different units, etc). > and in fact is how we do it in a social context ("I'm totally not making this shit up, I've read it in a scientific article / this morning newspaper /…

> You might be right if Google wants to answer all questions ever, but they can just limit this feature to situations where they do know what the answer is (you already see this when you type in math, conversions between different units, etc).

That argument was valid when they limited answers to simple calculations, coins exhange and the current weather. They are now trying to answer why fire cars are red and whether Obama is part of a conspiracy. For that kind of content, it's essential to be aware where the answer came from.

> That's not how I converse with people around me at all, I only talk about the source if there is some disbelieve about whether it is true. When someone asks me for some information, I will answer and that is the context the person places me in.

When you converse with people, there's a context of what you were talking about and your previous relations. Plus, you trust that the person will filter the sources that might interest you, and that they will apply common sense when selecting the sources and will warn you if they have little confidence in the answer. And you could further inquire them about the sources if the information looks fishy.

Nothing of this applies to Google. The question and answer are devoid of any context in a conversation. Plus it doesn't have common sense, it takes sources from the whole web, and it won't tell you how it selected the sources used to find the reply. The answer being provided by a secret algorithm should make you always disbelieve whether it is true.

> The whole idea is that you don't have to click / verify / think about the potential webpage, because Google has already ranked all webpages that mention your query, and it will only snippet the top one (which is the result Google thinks will most likely answer your question).

Right. And it should be clear that doing it this way is a sure recipe for spectacular failures.

> (the user now needs to look at the text & look at who said it and determine whether it might be true or not)

The user always needs to (be able to) do that. Pretending that they don't is deluding themselves, both the company and the users. Just ask Wikipedia what happens when you build a large scale knowledge repository and you don't follow this principle.

> Below the snippet are the 10 links that you can still click, functionality available since the mid 90s.

> Just click the top link?

You don't have any of those in the conversational interface, which is the default mode and primary interface for which this functionality is being created.

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#157
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really does seem like a big problem. What are some sites that do site search well? Is there currently a good way to implement something even half as good as Google locally without a major lift?

Why bother when Google will index your site for you? It's one fewer engineering task for a busy content provider to take on.

I can think of many reasons to bother. In the context of the article being discussed, it can be argued that Google is presenting sites' content without clear attribution. Preventing the need for the user to click-through also limits ad revenue (where applicable). Either would be a perfectly good reason to consider alternatives. It's a massive trade off, of course, given Google's position but I don't think decentralized search is a bad goal.

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they aren't. They are extracting a quote from a source that seems directly related to what you search for. The only difference between this and a regular search result is that it comes in a grey box, and the text is extracted via deep learning rather than pulling the first sentence or some html metatags. Interpreting a grey box as "truth" is entirely on you.

The problem is that it uses largely the same treatment as it does for actual facts. In other words, I don't think there's anything wrong with trusting Google when you search for "25 divided by 5", "33rd president of the US", etc. But when Google extends that response structure to things that, on further research, are not established fact, it shares some blame in spreading false knowledge.

Thats a stretch and you know it. Your comment shares some blame in spreading false knowledge yet you don't see me clamoring for HN to moderate their comments for truthfulness.

And no its not different, maybe I am not Internet savvy and believe the top rated comment on HN as the most informed opinion and take it as fact instead of researching something for myself.

To be clear, just because Google has some helpful widgets and search helpers built in does not mean it asserts its search results as facts or even the best result. Google is trying to get you the best answers it can, and makes no claim otherwise.

edit: I stand corrected, I had no idea about the Google TOS here that admits they are committed to only returning search results that are factual, and to that end factual to you specifically: https://google.com/things-that-are-not-there/

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#159
post #120

I've also wondered why Google isn't held responsible for publishing libelous claims and hoaxes as facts. Examples: Is Hillary Clinton a pedophile? https://www.google.com/search?q=is+hillary+clinton+a+pedophi... Is John Travolta gay? https://www.google.com/search?q=is+john+travolta+gay Does Lil Wayne have HIV? https://www.google.com/search?q=does+lil+wayne+have+hiv Perhaps worse, this is what drives Google Home's ques…

Because they can't be under US law. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...

Are you kidding me?! We need to get this law changed ASAP.

Look at this search result. This fake news stuff cannot be allowed to continue.

https://www.google.com/search?q=best+taco+place+in+San+Fansi...

Re: Google featured snippets are worse than fake news

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they can't be under US law. > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...

Are you kidding me?! We need to get this law changed ASAP. Look at this search result. This fake news stuff cannot be allowed to continue. https://www.google.com/search?q=best+taco+place+in+San+Fansi...

It's a pretty essential law for maintaining the internet as we know it. If providers could be sued for the content, provided by others, that passes through their services then we can't really have an open internet. ISPs would be afraid to allow anyone to connect because they could be sued for what their costumers do. Search engines would be afraid to index sites because they could be sued for any misinformation on them. Github would be afraid to host projects because they could be sued if any of them violates copyright. It would be a very different internet.
Post reply on HN