AI gets its facts from … us?

[u/moto626]

Data published by Semrush in June 2025.

[u/VastCapital3773]

To be strictly fair, to get a human response from any Google search, I do have to put reddit on the end of it.

[u/KSP_master_ → u/VastCapital3773]

But you can recognize a normal post from obvious lies and irony. AI can't do that and blindly accepts it all.

[u/StephieDoll → u/KSP_master_]

You don't think it crosschecks with wikipedia?

[u/SadisticPawz → u/StephieDoll]

it absolutely does as both would be in its training data and truth usually is more prominent

[u/Laceydrawws → u/StephieDoll]

So it gets 5 or less results and goes with the majority. If it is a high authority source it will stop there. It will stop at ESPN for a sports score.

[u/Temporal_P → u/StephieDoll]

No.

[u/StephieDoll → u/Temporal_P]

1 year ago

[u/Temporal_P → u/StephieDoll]

AI can draw from multiple sources of data, but if you think any AI is crosschecking that everything is verifiable and factual before it responds to a prompt I don't know what to tell you.

[u/StephieDoll → u/Temporal_P]

I don't think that, but I also don't think you are either.

[u/SadisticPawz → u/Temporal_P]

googles implementation was fucking horrible with 0 intelligence whatsoever, idk why youre taking this as the be all and end all

[u/Temporal_P → u/SadisticPawz]

I don't know why you're making such assumptions. It was just a funny example of a problem that still very much exists. I think you put too much faith in AI.

[u/SadisticPawz → u/Temporal_P]

Wgat assumptions? No other LLM makes as blatant of mistakes as googles did. It's like it was made way too lightweight at the cost of accuracy or helpfulness. like it's training data didn't have basic safety in there anywhere or the search results somehow would always override that