this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
703 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

85330 readers
3994 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
703
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
63 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
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 24 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I certainly don't want anything AI in my search engine. I'll always switch to whoever provides that. It's only been around a short time, maybe it's the way things will be in the future and that's great and all, but I won't use it. I know I'm a dinosaur you win

[–] dr_robotBones@reddthat.com 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Let us all be dinosaurs

[–] mriormro@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

I view them as two different tools entirely.

Did you think encyclopedia britannica was the internet?

[–] dr_robotBones@reddthat.com 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Tools are supposed to be useful, all LLMs do is lie and degrade your mental faculties

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Used incorrectly and without caution, yes. It can be made to be very useful if proper guardrails are in place and if the LLM is carefully guided in the task it's performing.

This means, that one should only use an LLM for something they are already quite familiar with doing without an LLM's assistance. Most people will not be doing this however (or in the case of Google's "summaries", unable to as they are not fully in control of the session), and this is where the problem arise.

[–] mriormro@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 hours ago

You’re being purposefully obstinate.

I’m merely stating that a search engine and an LLM are two different technologies that are not really analogous to one another. They do not need to be merged into one as they serve different functions.