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
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

I've used it to search some techniques on simulations as all it does is link me to some developer pages saving me a few minutes here and there to find the exact phrasing. But that's a rare field and hasn't been inundated with snake oil.

Would never trust it to diagnose a human condition or do my taxes nor trust the links it sent me to. So many hawkers with our without ai around that topic

So yeah, I think they should take some culpability on that and maybe they'd be forced to clean up their search engine as a result.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

I'll trust the links if I trust the sites it's linking to. Any other links are viewed with skepticism at least initially until I've vetted the site in question.