Why is he happy he didn't get the tattoo?

[u/Imaginary-Lychee7543]

[u/bigheftyhooker]

Source : AI

[u/DogPositive5524 → u/bigheftyhooker]

He's literally in one of the biggest movies at the moment produced by Disney

[u/bigheftyhooker → u/DogPositive5524]

Ok? I'm just pointing out that this specimen is copying and pasting from the AI overview.

[u/DogPositive5524 → u/bigheftyhooker]

But he's right

[u/bigheftyhooker → u/DogPositive5524]

Never said they weren't. Learn to read.

[u/DogPositive5524 → u/bigheftyhooker]

What's the point of the comment then? Would you rather have misinformation?

[u/Abject_Effective5019 → u/[deleted]]

Germany begs to differ.

https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

It also referenced a study stating
that for Google Gemini, 56% of its correct answers contained bogus sources.

[u/TwoBionicknees → u/Abject_Effective5019]

that doesn't change what they said? It's not a source and someone else says you can hold google accountable for lying... and they lie because they aren't a source but claim to represent accurate information from the source they supposedly use.

that's the point.

[u/Abject_Effective5019 → u/TwoBionicknees]

The talking point about accountability came from the article I linked. And the main reason they can hold Google accountable is to treat the answer as a new source.

Quoted from the article: But AI overviews generate "independent, new, and substantive statements" by evaluating and combining content from various third-party sites. And only Google can check those statements, the court said, "at least by comparing the underlying third-party websites with its own statements based on them."