Google's Knowledge Graph info boxes are automatically-generated and littered with errors. I've been burned twice on operating hours, once for my local bank and once for a convenience store, driving over each time only to find the place closed. In both cases, the correct hours were posted on the business's website. I've also seen bad KG results for medical conditions, listing the wrong symptoms or describing easily-tr…
If Google isn’t legally liable for this under defamation statutes, maybe they should be.
The example in the article sounds like a pretty blatant case of libel/slander. Though not as downright dangerous as some of your examples.
Google's Knowledge Graph info boxes are automatically-generated and littered with errors. I've been burned twice on operating hours, once for my local bank and once for a convenience store, driving over each time only to find the place closed. In both cases, the correct hours were posted on the business's website. I've also seen bad KG results for medical conditions, listing the wrong symptoms or describing easily-tr…
Technology Connections had a great observation about this in his video about touch lamps: the problem with Google's knowledge graph is that it takes everything it reads on the internet at face value. https://youtu.be/TbHBHhZOglw?t=58 (0:58 through 4:20)
> takes everything it reads on the internet at face value.
it's terrible but a lot of people [0] think digital information, and thus internet, is truth
[0] and if google itself falls for this.. no wonder if people do too
Out of curiosity...how did you prove a verbal contract? Recordings? 3rd person present as witness? Protocol from the verbal contract mailed to yourself?
I actually had a similar case with AT&T, except they went back and listened to their recording of the call and confirmed the promise. No need to sue.
Wow that seems like a first, for once, finally, additional collected information was used to absolve someone. You are a lucky guy :D
The info boxes sometimes contain surprising errors. I recently searched for Picasa and was informed that it was invented by Pablo Picasso in 2002! Google 'knows' Picasso died in the 1970s and it 'knows' he released a popular software program in 2002. That's an obvious contradiction requiring the simplest of rules to detect, but the system is just a dumb text extractor. (Interestingly, Google assistant gave the correc…
A few days ago, a person in an IRC channel I'm in was convinced AMD GPUs have CUDA cores, because they put "amd 5500rx cuda cores" into Google, saw the infobox entry that said "How many CUDA cores does a Rx 5700 have? 2,560 CUDA cores" and stubbornly refused to accept Google could be wrong. Amusingly that same infobox then has a table that states "2,560 stream processors" in the "Radeon RX 5700 XT" column. So one hal…
It's so strange, that infobox has never given me an accurate answer or an accurate question! What I mean by that is, it will find some snippet that sort of looks like it answers the question, but it's nearly always misleading. It's either lacking context, creating a question that doesn't make sense or just plain wrong. I avoid the thing like the plague and look for real answers in the actual search results (which are often the same pages, but at least provide context as to what question they are answering and how)
I have a longstanding project where I rank graduate creative writing programs by their alumni's appearances in a selection of prize anthologies. This means I spend a lot of time googling authors. There are a number of authors whose internet presence is shadowed by criminals with the same name. Then there are those who are shadowed by more famous people of the same name such as the Australian poet Kate Middleton or th…
I was so happy to find out 15 years ago that I have the same name as multiple pro athletes, both about the same age as me, too. I very much want to be un-Googleable.
It depends on what you do. I like that, if someone searches on my name, I'm the only person they come up with.
Actually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
For libel, you generally have to show harm, but there are some claims that are assumed on their face to be damaging an no proof of harm is needed (libel per-se). Falsely accusing someone of being a serial killer would generally fall into this category.
Edit: I think the harder part would be showing that people would believe the claim (which legally is separate from showing harm). Google could argue that since the box showed the serial killer died in the 80's that a reasonable person would realize it must be a mistake.
Actually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
Falsely claiming that someone committed a serious crime is per se defamation in many jurisdictions. There is no need to prove actual damage. It is damaging by definition.
Actually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
Easy to provide when will be detained at random airport for 10 hours until the authorities will triple-check all the info until everybody and the janitor will be satisfied. People has been stopped to take their fly for much less.
Technology Connections had a great observation about this in his video about touch lamps: the problem with Google's knowledge graph is that it takes everything it reads on the internet at face value. https://youtu.be/TbHBHhZOglw?t=58 (0:58 through 4:20)
> takes everything it reads on the internet at face value. it's terrible but a lot of people [0] think digital information, and thus internet, is truth [0] and if google itself falls for this.. no wonder if people do too
Google isn’t interested in truth, they are interested in information. They are provide a search engine not a truth engine.
Sarcasm aside, how do we propose they determine what is truth? If we assume the internet is full of information and more truthful than not, then Google’s assumption could be accurate. Of course they do try and solve this with the knowledge graph and expert curation. Connections to verified information might give validity to that information, but not always.
Google's Knowledge Graph info boxes are automatically-generated and littered with errors. I've been burned twice on operating hours, once for my local bank and once for a convenience store, driving over each time only to find the place closed. In both cases, the correct hours were posted on the business's website. I've also seen bad KG results for medical conditions, listing the wrong symptoms or describing easily-tr…
I once saw it source its info from a wrong answer in a multiple-choice quiz.