Google has been taking heat for some of the inaccurate, funny, and downright weird answers that it\u2019s been providing via AI Overviews in search.<\/p>\n
AI Overviews are the AI-generated search results that Google started rolling out more broadly<\/a> earlier this month, with mixed results \u2014 apparently, a user looking for help in getting cheese to stick to their pizza was told to add glue<\/a> (the advice was pulled from an old Reddit post<\/a>), and someone else was told to eat \u201cone small rock per day<\/a>\u201d (from The Onion<\/a>)\u00a0<\/p>\n Don\u2019t be disappointed if you don\u2019t get those answers yourself, or if you can\u2019t replicate other viral searches<\/a>, as Google is working to remove inaccurate results \u2014 a company spokesperson said in a statement that the company is taking \u201cswift action\u201d and is \u201cusing these examples to develop broader improvements to our systems.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite what Google AI\u2019s interpretation of WebMD says, staring at the sun is bad for your eyes regardless of skin color https:\/\/t.co\/O27O9Ex0iu<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Dr. Glaucomflecken (@DGlaucomflecken) May 24, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n \u201cThe vast majority of AI Overviews provide high quality information, with links to dig deeper on the web,\u201d the spokesperson said. \u201cMany of the examples we\u2019ve seen have been uncommon queries, and we\u2019ve also seen examples that were doctored or that we couldn\u2019t reproduce. We conducted extensive testing before launching this new experience, and as with other features we\u2019ve launched in Search, we appreciate the feedback.\u201d<\/p>\n So yes, it\u2019s probably safe to assume that these results will get better over time, and that some of the screenshots you\u2019re seeing on social media were created for laughs.<\/p>\n But seeing all these AI search results made me wonder: What are they actually for<\/em>? Even if everything was working perfectly, how would they be better than regular web search?<\/p>\n Clearly, Google is trying to bring users the answers they need without making them scroll through multiple web pages. In fact, the company wrote that in early tests<\/a> of AI Overviews, \u201cpeople use Search more, and are more satisfied with the results.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But the idea of killing the \u201c10 blue links\u201d is an old one<\/a>. And while Google has already made them less central, I think it would be premature to bury those blue links for good.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s take a very self-serving search: \u201cwhat is techcrunch\u201d gave me a summary that\u2019s mostly<\/em> accurate, but weirdly padded like a student trying to meet a page count minimum, with traffic numbers that seemed to come from a Yale career website<\/a>. Then if we move on to \u201chow do i get a story in techcrunch,\u201d the overview quotes an outdated article about how to submit guest columns (which we no longer accept).<\/p>\n The point isn\u2019t just to find even more<\/em> ways AI Overviews are getting things wrong, but to suggest that many of its errors will be less spectacular and entertaining, and more mundane instead. And although \u2014 to Google\u2019s credit \u2014 the Overviews do include links to the pages that provided the source material for the AI answers, figuring out which answer comes from which source takes us back to lots of clicking.<\/p>\n Google also says the inaccurate results getting called out on social media are often in data voids<\/a> \u2014 subjects where there\u2019s not a lot of accurate information online. Which is fair, but underlines the fact that AI, like regular search, needs a healthy open web full of accurate information.<\/p>\n\n
![\"Screenshot](\"https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/guest-columns.jpg?w=479\")