Skip to main content

AI and search engines - a dodgy combo?





Search engines are central to our everyday use of the internet - I must use a well-known search engine beginning with G at least a dozen times a day. But the search providers are displaying a worrying trend. Swept along by the enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, most have begun to display or offer an AI summary - in Google's case, this is the first thing you see at the top of the search results. And like all generative AI responses, it doesn't necessarily get it right.

This is quite easy to demonstrate if you make use of a query that pushes the boundary a little. I happened to be writing something about the BICEP2 telescope, located at the South Pole. So, interested to see how the AI would handle it, I asked 'Why was the BICEP2 telescope built at the South Pole?' This is quite a tricky question for an AI to handle - and Google's response demonstrated this powerfully. (The highlighting above was already there, it's not from me.)

It's certainly a good guess that you might locate a telescope at the South Pole because it's dark there, at least for six months of the year, with no light pollution. The problem is, though, that the (now replaced) BICEP2 was a radio/microwave telescope - and a lack of background signals in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum is not described as being dark.

But the real disaster in the confident result produced is that final sentence. The location did not help the telescope to detect primordial gravitational waves - admittedly they did announce that they had... but then they had to withdraw the claim within weeks when it turned out to be a result of polarisation from impact with dust. That final sentence is pure fiction.

Admittedly there is a small print warning that 'Generative AI is experimental' - but that isn't the same as saying that it can't be trusted (and anyway you only see it if you click a drop down to expand the original summary). By making the generative AI result the first thing you see - and let's face it, we're all lazy and often don't dig too far into a search result - there is a real danger that the software's potential for imaginings and hallucinations will be taken as an effective source of information. Surely that's not great?

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
Buy me a coffee
Article by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here


Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
123 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more