It will correct itself soon. Like it will be better at in 5 years because it will. Trust them and learn wrong things.

> how does anyone find this acceptable?

Many in the tech community have high expectations for Google engineering quality and product development. The expectations are now too high, much like the executives who pushed this feature.

> Many in the tech community have high expectations for Google engineering quality and product development

Wait? Whom has these expectations? I presumed most in the tech industry scoff at anything Google launches, point at Google Graveyard or at all the failures they've been through.

Seriously: aside from search, ads and android, what product has Google developed ever that is of high quality and meeting the high quality? Maybe maps at some point? Gmail, maybe? Google docs? For each and every google product, I can name two competitors that meet much higher expectations of engineering.

Photos is my favorite Google product (that isn't gmail and search circa 2004 - 2010ish)

Hopefully it won’t get Picasa’d

Chrome, Chromebooks and Android.

Non-Products: Kubernetes and MGLRU.

Android is anything but high quality. There are so many baffling and poorly thought out ideas it's a dumpster fire.

Such as?

MediaCodec/Camera2 API

Really the only 100% in-house products are Search and Gmail. The rest was bolted on piecemeal into the Borg: maps, android, double click, docs, YouTube, etc. - all acquired.

That’s not a bad thing, Google is really a story about a shrewd - even brilliant - acquisition and integration strategy.

However, they have systemically failed to grow new things in-house - be it space balloon internet, being an ISP, games network, etc etc.

They are likely better off just buying Anthropic at this point.

The retrospectives of this decade are going to be gloriously stupid.

It's got what plants crave: electrolytes.

Yeah, it's a full on clown world at this point.

It's not real, I think. It's a doctored image. See for yourself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+are+the+four+horsement+...

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+longest+marriage...

aaaaaaand this is exactly what I mean about people falling for misinformation. You fell for a human doctoring an image. Now imagine what much more subtle lies can do, at scale, with bot swarms creating articles and posts all over the internet to support their bullshit.

People already barely fact check anything they read online, and actually they barely read, they skim LOL!

Em. At least one of them is real since I just got it.

https://imgur.com/a/pY1VQC3

Query: how much would $3500 in 2015 be worth in 2024?

Edit: And got a second one: https://imgur.com/a/E9HJcpn

Query: what rhymes with pavement?

I got it too; it's real. Using the "Web" view gives the correct result on top, the AI overview looks like it picked 1789 as the starting point.

Maybe it's fake, or maybe it's been fixed since then. Who knows? This is another problem with these closed source services giving "personalized" results that are totally different from one person to the next and one day to the next. How would you propose we authenticate the screenshot?

Who knows!

We need an analogue of this IMHO: https://www.web3isgoinggreat.com/

I haven't seen any howlers myself in Google yet, but Meta suggested to me that electric city buses can be charged "at home."

I mean, that’s not wrong depending on the home…

But... mah third amendment!

It may be a doctored image. But we don't know. I don't think these things are deterministic. At least not just with search query. It could be real, and you might get a real response that makes sense.

it’s just ten RNGs and a dictionary in a trench coat.

Google may return different results at different times

Let me know if you ever get a result that's as wildly incorrect as those

I recently received a result that gave me the wrong date for a college class registration, which was pretty fucked up. It was off by three days. Luckily, I double checked my schools official website.

I did, but you wouldn't believe me anyways.

1. https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/celebrity/no-one-will...

2. When another Anonymous video drops, how do we know it’s the real Anonymous? Do they even know?

This WSJ article has lots of examples.

https://archive.is/20220817223004/https://www.wsj.com/articl...

Note 2017 though.

That article is from 2017, so has nothing to do with AI.

People will gleefully take on board memes that confirm what they want to be true even if it's an image of text.

Yes, we all know that Google searches appear exactly the same for all users.

My strong suspicion is that, for, say, the CEO of Google, this is less about "this will improve the product", or even "LLMs are the future, so we should use them in the present even though they don't work", and more "this is what the markets, which are collectively kinda dumb, have decided they will reward this year, so we will appease them until such time as they move onto a new toy."

See Our Lord and Saviour the Blockchain; for a year or so practically every company was announcing some sort of blockchain thing. Did any of these come to anything? Of course not, but that was, when it comes to it, hardly the point.

LLMs are a particularly dramatic example, but I suspect the dynamic is, in reality, more or less the same as metaverses, blockchains, the _previous_ AI bubble (remember the year or so when everyone was announcing chatbots, until Microsoft Tay kinda scared everyone off it abruptly?), and so on.