AI Overview literally tells you what sources it's drawing on. I don't see why people are capable of looking at what the sources are when they're Google search answers but not when they're AI Overview source links, but apparently, that is hard for some people.

This. Most people inevitably respond in these threads talking about "the model's training". AI Overview isn't like something like ChatGPT. It's a minuscule summarization model. It's not tasked to "know" anything - it's only tasked to sum up what the top search results say. In the case of the "glue on pizza" thing, one of the top search results was an old Reddit thread where a troll advised that. AI overview literally tells you what links it's drawing on.

Don't get me wrong, there's still many reasons why AI overview is a terrible idea.

1) It does nothing to assess for trolling. AI models absolutely can do that, they just have not.
2) It does nothing to assess for misinfo. AI models absolutely can do that, they just have not.
3) It does nothing to assess for scams. AI models absolutely can do that, they just have not.

And the reason the have not is that they need to run AI Overview hundreds of thousands of times per second, so they want the most absolutely barebones lightweight model imaginable. You could run their model on a cell phone it's so small.

Bad information on the internet is the main source of errors, like 95% of them. But there are two other types of mistakes as well:

4) The model isn't reading web pages in the same way that humans see them, and this can lead to misinterpreted information. For example, perhaps when rendered, there's a headline "Rape charges filed against local man", and below it a photo of a press conference with a caption "District Attorney John Smith", and then below that an article about the charges without mentioning the man's name. The model might get fed: "Rape charges filed against local man District Attorney John Smith", and report John Smith as a sex offender.

5) The model might well just screw up in its summarization. It is, after all, as miniscule as possible.

I personally find deploying a model with these weaknesses to be a fundamentally stupid idea. You *have* to assess sources, you *can't* have a nontrivial error rate in summarizations, etc. Otherwise you're just creating annoyance and net harm. But it's also important for people to understand what the errors actually are. None of these errors have anything to do with "what's in the model's training data". The model's training data is just random pieces of text followed by summaries of said text.

Yes, but they never deceived me into thinking I would get one without the other.

If you find a magazine that originally advertised itself as being without ads and then changed that promise without changing the cover price, and then bringing out a more expensive "special edition" without ads - then that would be comparable.

Would not exist if it wasnt for theft of someone elses intellectual property.

If they took someone's trade secrets to create their existence -- they did it before the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 was passed into law that created the crime of "trade secret misappropriation". Because Microsoft Windows already existed before 1996.

That's a $35K fine and 2 years probation on top of whatever civil damages Intel can muster.

This sort of conviction goes on your record, and as an employer it won't be smart to hire someone who has a criminal history of deliberately stealing trade secrets to use for the benefit of a future employer.

Think of it as rolling back the odometer on a car. Originally it had 150,000 miles.

Yes, but that is Odometer fraud not a counterfeit vehicle.

In this case they are selling legitimate hard drives but fraudulently misrepresenting them as not used yet.

The only thing that is counterfeit is if they are making a warranty misrepresentation. I could see how this concerns seagate if the seller is misrepresenting the unit as covered by a manufacturer warranty, but otherwise it's just a simple seller fraud not something the manufacturer should be able to say is counterfeit goods.

> you now have to upgrade$$ your membership to 'gold star' or 'executive'

you're historically backwards.

the business membership is the base membership. they added the less expensive membership, but held back some hours for the business folks to partially placate them.

the business members' purchases are what keep the place going; the cheap membership is just a bit of gravy.

>if you ignore that number of animals they have that want to kill you.

so you're saying that the solution is to import hostile wildlife from Australia? :_)

hawks

Well that's because they are outraged that North America and Europe are not shown as a tiny spec on the map.

I would argue Mercator is just fine and good enough for the intended classroom purpose which is to present the approximate shape of and relative location of different landmasses on planet earth. The fact of the matter IS that EU and North America are more important, so it is perfectly suitable to show them as visible landmasses and not tiny specs.

Your world maps are Not used by grade school students to calculate the actual areas or sizes of different countries. In fact, if thir assignment is doing any technical calculation on the map, then it's most likely to be regarding navigation. I believe Mercator gives a distorted view, but it is absolutely fine for the purpose that world maps generally serve for early students, Especially since they will almost always be shown to actual globes as well in a geography class.

In truth studying Globes and not maps is the only way to get a completely accurate representation for those cases where its needed. A very rough approximation that can be drawn on the back of a napkin is good enough for most purposes in elementary geography. I mean the "Mercator projection" shown in class does not even have to be an accurate Mercator projection to serve the purpose of presenting a world map.

Teachers would hand-draw these things on the board, and OF COURSE the relative areas are not exactly accurate. And OF COURSE the regions or countries they are focusing on are likely to be zoomed in at and drawn bigger. Africa just plain is not very important compared to other continents. I know back when I was in school so long ago; Africa is hardly covered at all, and students mostly learn about North America, South America, and the EU, possibly with some Asian-Pacific geography thrown in.

unless your navigating tools are so bad they can't handle going in a straight line.

Um. NOBODY can go in a straight line. A straight line through the ocean would put your boat underwater.

If an abstract thing like what size any particular area looks like on a projection harms identity and pride, then pray tell what projection should be adopted that will show all areas at their true size, and won't harm children's identity?

Stop showing early students full world maps early on, and show them physical globes instead, until after students are given a proper instruction on geometry, and the geometry of earth.

Also, special local maps that show only individual continents don't have this problem.

Neutrinos are called ghost particles because of how little they interact with other matter. They're constantly streaming through your body without interacting with you. A solar neutrino passing through the entire Earth has less than 1 in a million odds of interacting with the Earth.

Not like this with this - the energy here equates to a couple hundredths of a joule. Now, the "Oh My God! Particle" had a much higher energy, about three orders of magnitude higher. That's knock-photos-over sort of energy (and a lot more than that). The problem is that you can't deposit it all at once. A ton of energy does get transferred during the first collision, but it's ejecting whatever it hit out of whatever it was in as a shower of relativistic particles that - like the original particle - tend to travel a long distance between interactions. Whatever particle was hit is not pulling the whole target with it, it's just buggering off as a ghostly energy spray. There will be some limited chains of secondary interactions transferring more kinetic energy, but not "knock pictures over" levels of energy transferred.

Also, here on the surface you're very unlikely to get the original collision; collisions with the atmosphere can spread the resultant spray of particles out across multiple square kilometers before any of them reaches the surface.

Anyone who can piss away a billion dollars on a B-movie trash fest like Rings of Power that was clearly written by a teenage power-fantasy fanboy isn't broke. Well, maybe wasn't broke before that.

For streaming services, not even that. It's a fool-me-once issue.

When I already pay for your service, and then you ask me to pay AGAIN for not having ads, that's a type of protection racket you are running, not a legit business.

Oh yeah, and the TV UI for all streaming services I've seen so far fucking SUCKS. In capital letters. It's aweful. We've had better UIs for 30+ years. The only reason I can imagine these get out the door is that the entire UI/UX team is permanently unavailable due to collective seppuku.

So yes, if your service is shitty and you make it worse by adding ads, and then ask for prote^H^H^extra service fees to remove the things you added just so people need to pay for removing it again - you seriously expect to be treated like an honest business partner?