this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
709 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

85330 readers
4207 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
709
Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 day ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.

The ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices. After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.

Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, why is that? Why do they say something then cite something as a reference for that statement that sometimes actually states the exact opposite or is unrelated? Is the citation an after thought and not really directly linked to the training materials that generated the statement?

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago

Because they're just matching words. It has no idea what it's showing you.