this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1097 points (98.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
7658 readers
3005 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't mind seeing an AI summary of search results as much as I mind sponsored links fucking up page rank. Sometimes it is even nice to see "hey your search doesn't make sense because you've conflated two terms". But I guess I'm in the minority.
Reminds me of early wikipedia when there was a deep trustworthiness problem. Seeing a wikipedia link on a presentation stole your credibility, but it was still a hell of a lot better starting point than grabbing an encyclopedia and asking jeeves until you found a thread to pull.
AI summaries put another layer of interpretation between the reader and the source material. When having accurate and properly-sourced information matters, it's just not trustworthy enough. At least with Wikipedia, it tells you when there is potentially biased or improperly sourced material. Search AI will confidently assert their summaries as though they are factual, regardless of how reliable or unreliable their own sources are.
So long as the citations are there I'm not usually taking the summary at it's word. I find searching "hard to Google" terms easier with AI.
When having accurate and properly sourced material matters, I hope you're not trusting the descriptions of citations laid out by wikipedia editors who are also just another layer of interpretation. It's always worth a double check.
they make them up, and they dont source it properly.
AI fabricates citations.
This ^.
I think people forget the fabled "old" internet was actually a pile of trolls where one had to double check what they read.
Basic sanity checks really aren't that hard. But its a forgotten habit, I guess.
I've never had a result that helpful. I've seen it make up sports results in advance though.
I suppose I'm mostly using it for programming, movie look up, vocab, and so on. Not sports/weather/news kinds of things.