The AI summary is still useful for narrowing down the results, even if you fully check the citations.

> Obviously the marketing point of the AI tools is it just gives you an answer straight up so you don't have to bother reading normal sources.

To lazy people yes. That would be a marketing point. It’s not that though, so you use it to save time, but you don’t get to skip the verification step.

▲

Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google should not be publishing a statement that they haven't verified. This is different to listing search results links, they are the ones publishing the content here.

A journalist could not make up a harmful statement about someone and get away by saying the readers should have all read the sources. AI companies want to take all the benefits and profits, while holding none of the liability and responsibility for the harms they are causing.

▲

hunterpayne 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"A journalist could not make up a harmful statement about someone and get away by saying the readers should have all read the sources."

Journalists do that all the time. We even have a whole collection of words to describe it. Muckraking for instance is probably about 100 years old. Its even in the Google auto-complete in the browser I am posting from.

▲

Gigachad an hour ago | parent [-]

Notice the “get away with” part. Journalists can be held liable for making things up. And so should Google.

	▲	hunterpayne an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They aren't really held accountable in any way for this type of stuff.

▲

intended 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolutely not.

LLMs are, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of outsourced workers.

Google created a summary, not just sharing search results.

Google is responsible for the output it created and then published.

If they had only surfaced search results, then they would not be liable for what other people generated.

Google’s scale does not protect it from this liability.