> YouTube channels with AI generated videos have exploded in sheer quantity, and I think majority of the new channels and videos uploaded to YouTube might actually be AI; "Dead internet theory," et al.

Yeah. This has really become a problem.

Not for all videos; music videos are kind of fine. I don't listen to music generated by AI but good music should be good music.

The rest has unfortunately really gotten worse. Google is ruining youtube here. Many videos now contain real videos, and AI generated videos, e. g. animal videos. With some this is obvious; other videos are hard to expose as AI. I changed my own policy - I consider anyone using AI and not declaring this properly, a cheater I don't want to ever again interact with (on youtube). Now I need to find a no-AI videos extension.

All of that and you're still a heavy user? Why would google change how Gemini works if you keep using it despite those issues?

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.

>Countering debasement of shared reality and NOT using AI generated videos as sources should be a HUGE priority for Google.

This itself seems pretty damning of these AI systems from a narrative point of view, if we take it at face value.

You can't trust AI to generate things that are sufficiently grounded in facts that you can't even use it as a reference point. Why should end users believe the narrative that these things are as capable as they're being told they are, by extension?

Google will mouth words, but their bottom line runs the show. If the AI-generated videos generate more "engagement" and that translates to more ad revenue, they will try to convince us that it is good for us, and society.

Try Kagi’s Research agent if you get a chance. It seems to have been given the instruction to tunnel through to primary sources, something you can see it do on reasoning iterations, often in ways that force a modification of its working hypothesis.

Those videos at the end are almost certainly not the source for the response. They are just a "search for related content on youtube to fish for views"

> 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.

> Gemini cites lots of "AI generated" videos as its primary source

Almost every time for me... an AI generated video, with AI voiceover, AI generated images, always with < 300 views

> A few days ago, I asked it some questions on Russia's industrial base and military hardware manufacturing capability

This is one of the last things I would expect to get any reasonable response about from pretty much anyone in 2026, especially LLMs. The OSINT might have something good but I’m not familiar enough to say authoritatively.

Ourobouros - The mythical snake that eats its own tail (and ingests its own excrement)

Users a can turn off grounded search in the Gemini API. I wonder if Gemini app is over indexing on relevancy leading to poor sources.

Google is in a much better spot to filter out all AI generated content than others.

It's not like chatgpt is not going to cite AI videos/articles.

I think we hit peak AI improvement velocity sometime mid last year. The reality is all progress was made using a huge backlog of public data. There will never be 20+ years of authentic data dumped on the web again.

I've hoped against but suspected that as time goes on LLMs will become increasingly poisoned by the the well of the closed loop. I don't think most companies can resist the allure of more free data as bitter as it may taste.

Gemini has been co opted as a way to boost youtube views. It refuses to stop showing you videos no matter what you do.

I came across a YouTube video that was recommended to me this weekend, talking about how Canada is responding to these new tariffs in January 2026, talking about what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was doing, etc. etc.

Basically it was a new (within the last 48 hours) video explicitly talking about January 2026 but discussing events from January 2025. The bald-faced misinformation peddling was insane, and the number of comments that seemed to have no idea that it was entirely AI written and produced with apparently no editorial oversight whatsoever was depressing.

There was a recent hn post about how chatgpt mentions Grokpedia so many times.

Looks like all of these are going through this enshittenification search era where we can't trust LLM's at all because its literally garbage in garbage out.

Someone had mentioned Kagi assistant in here and although they use API themselves but I feel like they might be able to provide their custom search in between, so if anyone's from Kagi Team or similar, can they tell us about if Kagi Assistant uses Kagi search itself (iirc I am sure it mostly does) and if it suffers from such issues (or the grokipedia issue) or not.

So how does one avoid the mistake again? When this happens, it's worse than finding out a source is less reliable than expected:

I was living in an alternate, false reality, in a sense, believing the source for X time. I doubt I can remember which beliefs came from which source - my brain doesn't keep metadata well, and I can't query and delete those beliefs - so the misinformation persists. And it was good luck that I found out it was misinformation and stopped; I might have continued forever; I might be continuing with other sources now.

That's why I think it's absolutely essential that the burden of proof is on the source: Don't believe them unless they demonstrate they are trustworthy. They are guilty until proven innocent. That's how science and the law work, for example. That's the only innoculation against misinformation, imho.

> I still don't watch a video that could be text I could read in one-tenth of the time.

I know someone like this. Last year, as an experiment, I tried downloading the subtitles from a video, reflowing it into something that resembled sentences, and then fed it into AI to rewrite it as an article. It worked decently well.

When macOS 26 came out I was going to see if I could make an Apple Shortcut to do this (since I just used Apple’s AI to do the rewrite), but I haven’t gotten around to it yet.

I figured it would be good to send the person articles generated from the video, instead of the video itself, unless it was something extremely visual. It might also be nice to summarize a long podcast. How many 3 hour podcasts can a person listen to in a week?

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.

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.

That's interesting ... why would you want to wall off and ignore what is undoubtedly one of the largest repositories of knowledge (and trivia and ignorance, but also knowledge) ever assembled? The idea that a person can read and understand an article faster than they can watch a video with the same level of comprehension does not, to me, seem obviously true. If it were true there would be no role for things like university lecturers. Everyone would just read the text.

> Google’s search feature AI Overviews cites YouTube more than any medical website when answering queries about health conditions

It matters in the context of health related queries.

> Researchers at SE Ranking, a search engine optimisation platform, found 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.

> “This matters because YouTube is not a medical publisher,” the researchers wrote. “It is a general-purpose video platform. Anyone can upload content there (eg board-certified physicians, hospital channels, but also wellness influencers, life coaches, and creators with no medical training at all).”

Yea, clearly this is the case. Also, as there isn't a clearly defined public-facing medical knowledge source, every institution/school/hospital system would be split from each other even further. I suspect that if one compared the aggregate of all reliable medical sources, it would be higher than youtube by a considerable margin. Also, since this search was done with German-language queries, I suspect this would reduce the chances of reputable English sources being quoted even further.

To the Guardian's credit, at the bottom they explicitly cited the researchers walking back their own research claims.

> However, the researchers cautioned that these videos represented fewer than 1% of all the YouTube links cited by AI Overviews on health.

> “Most of them (24 out of 25) come from medical-related channels like hospitals, clinics and health organisations,” the researchers wrote. “On top of that, 21 of the 25 videos clearly note that the content was created by a licensed or trusted source.

> “So at first glance it looks pretty reassuring. But it’s important to remember that these 25 videos are just a tiny slice (less than 1% of all YouTube links AI Overviews actually cite). With the rest of the videos, the situation could be very different.”

Might be but aren't. They're inevitably someone I've never heard of from no recognizable organization. If they have credentials, they are invisible to me.

Medical advice from videos is frequently of the "unhelpful" variety where people recommend home cures that work for some things for absolutely everything.

Also people are really partial to "one quick trick" type solutions without any evidence (or with low barrier to entry) in order to avoid a more difficult procedure that is more proven, but nasty or risky in some way.

For example, if you had cancer would you rather take:

"Ivermectin" which many people say anecdotally cured their cancer, and is generally proven to be harmless to most people (side-effects are minimal)

OR

"Chemotherapy" Which everyone who has taken agrees is nasty, is medically proven to fix Cancer in most cases, but also causes lots of bad side-effects because it's trying to kill your cancer faster than the rest of you.

One of these things actually cures cancer, but who wouldn't be interested in an alternative "miracle cure" that medical journals will tell you does "nothing to solve your problem", but plenty of snake oil salesman on the internet will tell you is a "miracle cure".

[Source] Hank green has a video about why these kinds of medicines are particularly enticing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC9glJa1-c0

Medical topics are hard because it's often impossible to provide enough information through the internet to make a diagnosis. Although frustrating for users, "go see a doctor" is really the only way to make progress once you hit the wall where testing combined with years of clinical experience are needed to evaluate something.

A lot of the YouTube and other social media medical content has started trying to fill this void by providing seemingly more definitive answers to vague inputs. There's a lot of content that exists to basically confirm what the viewer wants to hear, not tell them that their doctor is a better judge than they are.

This is happening everywhere on social media. See the explosion in content dedicated to telling people that every little thing is a symptom of ADHD or that being a little socially awkward or having unusual interests is a reliable indicator for Autism.

There's a growing problem in the medical field where patients show up to the clinic having watched hundreds of hours of TikTok and YouTube videos and having already self-diagnosing themselves with multiple conditions. Talking them out of their conclusions can be really hard when the provider only has 40 minutes but the patient has a parasocial relationship with 10 different influencers who speak to them every day through videos.

Those sites typically end with “talk to your doctor”. There’s many creators out there whose entire platform is “Your doctor won’t tell you this!”. I trust the NHS, older CDC pages, Mayo clinic as platforms, more than I will ever trust youtube.

I have yet to see a single person in my day to day life not immediately reference AI overviews when looking something up.

My favorite part of the AI overview is when it says "X is Y (20 sources)" and you click on the sources and Ctrl+F "X is Y" and none of them seem verbatim what the AI is saying they said so you're left wondering if the AI just made it up completely or it paraphrased something that is actually written in one of the sources.

If only we had the technology to display verbatim the text from a webpage in another webpage.

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

That's because decent (but still flawed) GenAI is expensive. The AI Overview model is even cheaper than the AI Mode model, which is cheaper than the Gemini free model, which is cheaper than the Gemini Thinking model, which is cheaer than the Gemini Pro model, which is still very misleading when working on human language source content. (It's much better at math and code).

WebMD is a real doctor, I guess. It's got an MD right in the name!

Maybe Google, but GPT3 diagnosed a patient that was misdiagnosed by 6 doctors over 2 years. To be fair, 1 out of those 6 doctors should have figured it out. The other 5 were out of their element. Doctor number 7 was married to me and got top 10 most likely diagnosis from GPT3.

> A close relative is a practicing surgeon and a professor in his field. He watches youtube videos of surgeries practically every day.

A professor in the field can probably go "ok this video is bullshit" a couple minutes in if it's wrong. They can identify a bad surgeon, a dangerous technique, or an edge case that may not be covered.

You and I cannot. Basically, the same problem the general public has with phishing, but even more devastating potential consequences.

Exactly. This is the holy grail of advertising. Seamless and undisclosed. That, and replacing vast amounts of labor, are some of the only uses that justify the level of investment in LLM AI.

The vast majority of journal articles are not available freely to the public. A second problem is that the business of scientific journals has destroyed itself by massive proliferation of lower quality journals with misleading names, slapdash peer review, and the crisis of quiet retractions.

> Google AI (owned by Meta) favoring YouTube (also owned by Meta) should be unsurprising.

...what?

This is absolute nonsense. Neither Google AI or YouTube are owned by Meta. What gave you the idea that they were?

How do I respond to this nicely without getting my comment flagged

> big corporations slowly turn more and more of the world wide web into their private variant.

Geocities was so far ahead of its time.