Columbia Journalism Review tested eight generative AI search tools and found their answers were wrong 60% of the time, and the paid ones actually fared worse than the free ones.
Meanwhile, millions of people trust the way they present total bullshit with confident language.
Meanwhile, millions of people trust the way they present total bullshit with confident language.
Comments
I mean, look who is president.
It's just WILD to me that there are people who trust it will have correct answers.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/18/italian-newspaper-says-it-has-published-worlds-first-ai-generated-edition?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
So far for journalism being the cornerstone of democracy, checking those in power and providing the people with the data to make informed choices.
Ain't gonna work!
The most on-point example of “Garbage In, Garbage Out” I’ve ever seen. I will gleefully continue my AI-Luddite ways for the foreseeable future.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html
https://youtu.be/11bEGWU8r74?feature=shared
🤦♂️
User: asks a question
GenAI: gives an answer, which may be anywhere between 0-90% correct
User: "No, I don't think that's right."
GenAI: "Sorry about that! You're correct..." & confidently states the opposite of 1st answer
I'm glad I was able to talk them down.
The bot usually only gets some chunks of the page, which may or may not have the headline and URL in them.
Wonder who could have taught them that.
Time to generate a Ladies Only AI.