Searching with AI is akin to asking a smart friend information, and they give you the info they want to share. It's fast food info.
Searching without AI is akin to visiting the library and reading, where you do the work and learn what you want. It's the slow cooked meal.

To each their own meal choice.

 

I aggree. It is important to keep in mind that a fast cooked meal is not equal to unhealthy and the other way around. So choosing the proper meal is an important task.

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2026 at 7:49 PM

We live in a century of zero accountability. Any law making body of any country that makes people and corporations more accountable for their choices and actions is a win for everyone in my book, no matter how small.

If someone came in and robbed your home and they were sent by a corporation to do it claiming some protective ordinance, most people would feel violated in almost every way. Curtailing people and corporations choices to where they cannot turn around and say: "I was ordered to" or "I am protected and not saying I did anything"(When they did) I believe benefits everyone.
There's enough disinformation, misinformation and crap in the world. Curtailing it to reiterate, should never be considered a bad thing. Nobody wants to go through their life with the wrong information being told it is right.

I see this as a judge holding them to account for their own choices. That is the focus from where I sit.

 

AFAIK, these are the two (biggest) legit concerns about Google shoving AI in its search engine. Two fellow users already explained them well, I'm only quoting the parts I've heard about:

Same here bro. Too much AI shit lately
As a personal disclaimer I found useful sometimes searching through AI. But I don't like it mandatorily shoved in the "classic" google search. When I want AI I go straight to Google Gemini, aware of the pros and cons. Separation, please.

 

So does this mean more melodrama in the "news" and many fine lawsuits against googie?? It is a nice thought, but I doubt that very few cases such as these would glean much reward for the plaintiff's. googie has hordes of sharky law types chomping at the bit to court cases such as these.

Since the use of so-called "AI" is completely voluntary on the part of the end user and not mandated (or needed), those seeking fiduciary remedies for such allegations would have a mighty large burden of proof laid upon them to substantiate their case.

I still laugh at the term "AI" being used to describe what amounts to nothing more than item matching algorithms that have been around for decades already which get information wrong quite large percentages of the time.

 

It's not mandatory really. If there is no facility to not use it on one tool, then the beauty of the net is that there are many other fine and fuzzy search tools one can use to do the searching. DDG gives options which is what I end up using 99% of the time anymore. I can count on one hand the number of actual googie searches I have done in the past years.

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2026 at 9:15 PM

Time for a plug – a Google alternative:

DuckDuckGo was founded by Gabriel Weinberg (born 1979) and launched on February 29, 2008. As a young man, he programmed an online store for his mother's tailoring business. He studied physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and sold his email address database in 2006 for 10 million US dollars. Weinberg holds a Bachelor of Science in Physics and a Master of Science in Technology and Policy. In 2005, he wrote his master's thesis on the problem of spam as part of the Technology and Policy program.

The browser that actively protects your personal information.

https://duckduckgo.com

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2026 at 9:39 PM

Do they need to make the button to disable it bigger on the page?

 

AI web search is fantastic. I use it 85+% of the time. The rest is image-based searches using conventional search engines (porn, memes, whatever.)

I've been using Agentic AI: Building pipelines, extracting keys, blah blah blah.

I've learned that AI is a two-lane road - It teaches me; I teach it. Sometimes it knows better than me; sometimes it's retarded, and I need to direct it - Sometimes human logic & reasoning is better than computer science.

Court cases like this make me fear that people who have no clue wish to make "one size fits all" laws, and the rest of us will suffer due to ignorance.

AI is experimental. I understand that, and I don't want ignorant people to make decisions on my behalf. I believe that is unfair.

 

Imagine AI hallucinating you're a kiddie fiddler (yes, YOU personally, work that imagination, please, humour me), because it connected your screen name to someone else (or for any other reason). Imagine trying to fight back.. and losing.

And lose you will not just in the court of the law (which you might actually survive), lose you will also in the court of the people and everyone you've ever known (which you probably won't survive).

"Oh, that'd never.."
It's happening right now, this thread is about one such case where someone is trying to reclaim their reputation from AI hallucinations.

Hallucinations that no normie is going to disable in their Google search results.

Companies and AIs cannot be allowed to monopolise the truth.

 

In a courtroom, people can present evidence.

Do you know of a real-world case where someone has been criminally implicated due to AI "hallucination?"

 

Not exactly that, but recently someone posted that a certain person on a specific street was a child molester; this false report spread across social media, and some people ended up outside the alleged perpetrator's house. It was a tense situation—the police arrived, and it turned out he wasn't a criminal at all; it had all been a mistake.

Another example: the first fake videos using stolen original footage are now appearing, where famous figures are given AI-generated scripts and their speech is faked...!

 

That is a terrifying situation. Your first paragraph describes human mis/dis/mal/information. It doesn't mention AI.

 

https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/

This database tracks legal decisions in cases where generative AI produced hallucinated content.

The number of cases where hallucinated alt-facts were a deciding factor in sentencing is almost certainly many, many, many times larger than the 1700 cases that were caught in time or caught in hindsight. Lawyers were some of the earliest adaptors of AI. If you do read the news, you almost certainly have read several times that courts now get swamped with lawyers citing previous rulings that never happened, laws that do not exist, science that's made up, using online evidence that never existed.

 

Last edited: Jun 28, 2026 at 4:11 PM

April 29, 2026 ... AI fraud and online fraud are on the rise:
One in four consumers in Germany has fallen victim to fraud. Identity theft, fake online shops, and high ...
https://www.schufa.de/newsroom/pressemitteilungen/online-betrug-kostet-verbraucher-viel-geld/

AI fraud: €442 billion in global losses in 2025 – BornCity June 8, 2026 ...
INTERPOL estimates global losses due to AI-driven fraud in 2025 at approximately €442 billion.

 

pasteurized milk does'nt matter because the milkay way shall milk you a way or away

PeaceR Bonne Ape_tite and happy ESC_APE

 

* Rulings that never happened, laws that don't exist - Should the lawyers fact-check their sources?

* Fraudulent activity - Are humans behind it?

***

I'm not going out of my way to be "dismissive," though I recognize it appears that way.

I don't see a case where AI is to "blame." I see humans being manipulative, exploitative, and acting criminally by law standards.

Didn't humans behave the same way before AI? Yep.

Isn't AI just a new toy / tool / utility / etc.?

***

What would you like to see happen with AI?
What kind of laws do you think should be implemented?
How would you solve the problems?
Do you believe AI is the problem?

***

I use AI almost every time I pick up my phone or sit down at my computer. I don't harm anyone with AI. AI helps me understand things, code things... I have been able to achieve things that were impossible for me, before.

 

Nationalise AI. It's effectively happened in the US (see the cascade of government restrictions/sanctions put on new models in recent weeks). China to follow suit eventually. EU - possibly.

Remains to be seen really.

For now, I believe that the best we can do is to consider implementing laws that would, for anyone using AI for any public-facing purpose, increase the degree to which they're liable for their AI tuned social & commercial output. To make sure that you're not just using AI to cut corners for profit (fire all your human safety testers, shit out an avalanche of even more unsafe, crappy products) or to amplify (false) narratives without fact-checking.

Scales. Takes one data centre of AI to create the same amount of content as many millions of humans. AI doesn't need to sleep or take breaks to eat. We can't compete with AI whenever scale and speed is concerned. Takes humanity hundreds of years or even millennia to move the needle on truth (science vs religion for example). And that's how we're going to lose the human monopoly on truth, much faster than most of you think.

 

And since checking all the bullshit Google's AI tells you takes exactly as much time as if you hadn't asked it a damn thing, you realize right away that its only goal is to jerk you around and drive you fucking insane.

The worst part is that this brainless piece of trash still has the fucking nerve to suggest « exploring other aspects » of a concept it doesn't even understand itself, making you waste three hours 'helping you' build a whole theory based on a totally fake premise!

 

"The Human Monopoly on Truth" - This is what will hold us back. Truth is subjective, while ever Humans are in control. We will train our AI's subjectively, and our AI's will continue to produce shit. Just like us.