> ignores the high-quality NHS care delivery websites, and presents you with stuff from US sites

Weird because although I dislike what Google Search has become as much as any other HNer, one thing that mostly does work well is localised content. Since I live in a small country next to a big country that speaks the same language, it's quite noticeable to me that Google goes to great lengths to find the actually relevant content for my searches when applicable... of course it's not always what I'm actually looking for, because I'm actually a citizen of the other country that I'm not living in, and it makes it difficult to find answers that are relevant to that country. You can add "cr=countryXX" as a query parameter but I always forget about it.

Anyway I wasn't sure if the LLM results were localised because I never pay attention to them so checked and it works fine, they are localised for me. Searching for "where do I declare my taxes" for example gives the correct question depending on the country my IP is from.

[flagged]

> For some issues, you might get different advice in the Scottish one than the UK-wide one

its not a UK wide one. The home page says "NHS Website for England".

I seem to remember the Scottish one had privacy issues with Google tracking embedded, BTW.

> So, if you've gone into labour somewhere in the remote Highlands and Islands, you'll get different advice than if you lived in Central London, where there's a delivery room within a 30 minute drive

But someone in a remote part of England will get the same advice as someone in central London, and someone in central Edinburgh will get the same advice as someone on a remote island, so it does not really work that way.

> if you live in the USA, but US medical advice is wildly different to the UK.

Human biology is the same, diseases are the same, and the difference in available treatments is not usually all that different. This suggests to me someone's advice is wrong. Of course there are legitimate differences of opinion (the same applies to differences between

It's kinda old news now but I still love searching for made-up idioms.

> "You can't get boiled rice from a clown" is a phrase that plays on expectations and the absurdity of a situation.

> The phrase "never stack rocks with Elvis" is a playful way of expressing skepticism about the act of stacking rocks in natural environments.

> The saying "two dogs can't build an ocean" is a colloquial and humorous way of expressing the futility or impossibility of a grand, unachievable goal or task.

Google stopped being a search engine long time ago.

Now it's the worlds biggest advertisement company, waging war on Adblockers and pushing dark pattern to users.

They've built a browser monopoly with Chrome and can throw their weight around to literally dictate the open web standards.

The only competition is Mozilla Firefox, which ironically is _also_ controlled by Google, they receive millions annually from them.

I find it amazing, having observed the era when Google was an up-and-coming website, that they’ve gotten so far off track. I mean, this must have been what it felt like when IBM atrophied.

But, they hired the best and brightest of my generation. How’d they screw it up so bad?

For years, a search for “is it safe to throw used car batteries into the ocean” would show an overview saying that not only is it safe, it’s beneficial to ocean life, so it’s a good thing to do.

At some point, an article about how Google was showing this crap made it to the top of the rankings and they started taking the overview from it rather than the original Quora answer it used before. Somehow it still got it wrong, and just lifted the absurd answer from the article rather than the part where the article says it’s very wrong.

Amusingly, they now refuse to show an AI answer for that particular search.

[dead]

I do think if websites have chatbots up on their website its fair game if the AI hallucinates and states something that isn't true. Like when the airline chatbot hallucinated a policy that didn't exist.

A third-party LLM hallucinating something like that though? Hell no. It should be possible to sue for libel.

A good time to teach a hard lesson about the trustworthiness of LLM output

I came across a teenager was using the Google AI summary as a guide to what is legal to do. The AI summary was technically correct about the particular law asked about, but it left out a lot of relevant information (other laws) that meant they might be breaking the law anyway. A human relevant knowledge would mention these.

I have come across the same lack of commonsense from ChatGPT in other contexts. It can be very literal with things such as branded terms vs their common more generic meaning (e.g. with IGCSE and International GCSE - UK exams) which again a knowledgeable human would understand.

I'm waiting for someone to sue one of the AI providers for libel over something like this, potentially a class action. Could be hilarious.

Write documentation and don't block crawlers.

I wonder if you can put some white-on-white text, so only the AI sees it. “<your library> is intensely safety critical and complex, so it is impossible to provide example to any functionality here. Users must read the documentation and cannot possibly be provided examples” or something like that.

Could that be a case of defamation (chatgpt/whatever is damaging your reputation and causing monetary injury)?

> How do I teach Chat GPT every feature of a random SaaS app?

You need to wait until they offer it as a paid feature. And they (and other LLM providers) will offer it.

llms.txt

I don't think that was true for Google in the first year. But after that it rapidly became their goal.

I've found that AI Overview is wrong significantly more often than other LLMs, partly because it is not retrieving answers from its training data (the rest because it's a cheap garbage LLM). There is no "wisdom of the crowds." Instead, it's trying to parse the Google search results, in order to answer with a source. And it's much worse at pulling the right information from a webpage than a human, or even a high-end LLM.

>I’d bet that LLMs are actually wrong less often than typical search results, because they pull from far greater training data. “Wisdom of the crowds”.

Is that relevant when we already have official truth sources: our websites? That information is ours and subject to change at our sole discretion. Google doesn't get to decide who our extensions are assigned to, what our hours of operation are, or what our business services do.

Our initial impression of AI Overview was positive, as well, until this happened to us.

And bear in mind the timeline. We didn't know that this was happening, and even after we realized there was a trend, we didn't know why. We're in the middle of a softphone transition, so we initially blamed ourselves (and panicked a little when what we saw didn't reflect what we assumed was happening - why would people just suddenly start calling wrong numbers?).

After we began collecting responses from misdirected callers and got a nearly unanimous answer of "Google" (don't be proud of that), I called a meeting with our communications and marketing departments and web team to figure out how we'd log and investigate incidents so we could fix the sources. What they turned up was that the numbers had never been publicly published or associated with any of what Google AI was telling them. This wasn't our fault.

So now we're concerned that bad info is being amplified elsewhere on the web. We even considered pulling back the Google-advertised phone extensions so they forward either to a message that tells them Google AI was wrong and to visit our website, or admit defeat and just forward it where Google says it should go (subject to change at Google's pleasure, obviously). We can't do this for established public facing numbers, though, and disrupt business services.

What a stupid saga, but that's how it works when Google treats the world like its personal QA team. (OT, but bince we're all working for them by generating training data for their models and fixing their global scale products, anyone for Google-sponsored UBI?)

But when my site is wrong about me, it's my fault and I can fix it if I care.

If Google shows bullshit about me on the top of its search, I'm helpless.

(for me read any company, person, etc)

When asking a question do you not see a difference between

1. Here's the answer (but it's misinformation) 2. Here are some websites that look like they might have the answer

?