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

181–190 of 214 posts

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

#181

Post by themafia »

nathan_compton wrote: post #177
gretch wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every other source for information, including (or maybe especially) human experts can also make mistakes or hallucinate. The reason ppl go to LLMs for medical advice is because real doctors actually fuck up each and everyday. For clear, objective examples look up stories where surgeons leave things inside of patient bodies post op. Here’s one, and there many like it. https://abc13.com/amp/post/hospital-fined-after-su…

[flagged]

"Doing your own research" is back on the menu boys!

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

#182

Post by estimator7292 »

trympet wrote: post #159
trympet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just wait until you get a group of nerds talking about keyboards Don’t get me started on the HHKB [1] with Topre membrane keyswitches. It is simply put the best keyboard on the market. Buy this. (No, Fujitsu didn’t pay me to say this) [1] - https://hhkeyboard.us/hhkb/

Dunno why I’m getting downvoted. Is it because you disagree with my statement? Is it because I’m off topic? Do you think I’m a shill?

People are downvoting an out of context advertisement shoved in the middle of a conversation.

Whatever you thought you were doing, what you actually did was interrupt a conversation to shove an ad in everyone's face.

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

#183

Post by themafia »

WheatMillington wrote: post #152
themafia wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and has the potential to debase shared reality. If only. What it actually has is the potential to debase the value of "AI." People will just eventually figure out that these tools are garbage and stop relying on them. I consider that a positive outcome.

People used to tell me the same about Wikipedia.

That it could "debase shared reality?"

Or that using it as a single source of truth was fraught with difficulties?

Has the latter condition actually changed?

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

#184

Post by gpm »

no_wizard wrote: post #178
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 trusting an AI told to lie to you is different than not trusting an AI The entire foundation of trust is that I’m not being lied to. I fail to see a difference. If they are lying, they can’t be trusted

Saying "some people use llms to spread lies therefore I don't trust any llms" is like saying "since people use people to spread lies therefore I don't trust any people". Regardless of whether or not you should trust llms this argument is clearly not proof of it.

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

#185

Post by biophysboy »

jppope wrote: post #143

Naïve question here... personally, I've never found Webmd, cdc, or Mayo clinic to be that good at fulfilling actual medical questions. why is it a problem to cite YouTube videos with a lot of views? Wouldn't that be better?

The core reason why medical advice online is "bad" is because it is not tailored to you as an individual. Even written descriptions of symptoms is only going to get you so far. Its still too generic and imprecise - you need personal data. Given this caveat, the advice of webmd, cdc, or mayo is going to be leagues better than YouTube, mostly because it will err on the side of caution, instead of recommending random supplements or mediocre exercise regimens.

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

#186

Post by danpalmer »

> YouTube made up 4.43% of all AI Overview citations. No hospital network, government health portal, medical association or academic institution came close to that number, they said.

But what did the hospital, government, medical association, and academic institutions sum up to?

The article goes on to given the 2nd to 5th positions in the list. 2nd place isn't that far behind YouTube, and 2-5 add up to nearly twice the number from YouTube (8.26% > 4.43%). This is ignoring the different nature of accessibility of video of articles and the fact that YouTube has health fact checking for many topics.

I love The Guardian, but this is bad reporting about a bad study. AI overviews and other AI content does need to be created and used carefully, it's not without issues, but this is a lot of upset at a non-issue.

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

#187

Post by jacquesm »

Of course they do: Youtube makes Google more money. Video is a crap medium for most of the results to my queries and yet it is usually by far the biggest chunk of the results. Then you get the (very often comically wrong) AI results and then finally some web page links. The really odd thing is that Google has a 'video' search facility, if I want a video as the result I would use that instead or I would use the 'video' keyword.

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

#188

Post by citizenpaul »

Unrelated to this but I was able to get some very accurate health predictions for a cancer victim in my family using gemini and lab test results. I would actually say that other than one Doctor Gemini was more straightforward and honest about how and more importantly WHEN things would progress. Nearly to the day on every point over 6 months.

Pretty much every doctor would only say vague things like everyone is different all cases are different.

I did find this surprising considering I am critical of AI in general. However I think less the AI is good than the doctors simply don't like giving hopeless information. An entirely different problem. Either way the AI was incredibly useful to me for a literal life/death subject I have almost no knowledge about.

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

#189

Post by WheatMillington »

themafia wrote: post #183
WheatMillington wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People used to tell me the same about Wikipedia.

That it could "debase shared reality?" Or that using it as a single source of truth was fraught with difficulties? Has the latter condition actually changed?

That it's a garbage data source that could not be relied upon.

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

#190

Post by accrual »

bflesch wrote: post #161
trympet wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just wait until you get a group of nerds talking about keyboards Don’t get me started on the HHKB [1] with Topre membrane keyswitches. It is simply put the best keyboard on the market. Buy this. (No, Fujitsu didn’t pay me to say this) [1] - https://hhkeyboard.us/hhkb/

That thing is missing a whole bunch of ctrl keys, how can it be the best keyboard on the market?

Never used a HHKB (and would miss the modifier keys too), but after daily driving Topre switches for about 1.5 years, I can confirm they are fantastic switches and worth every penny.
Post reply on HN