I can't speak for everyone, but I know I certainly don't want anything AI in my search engine. I'll always switch to whoever provides that. It's only been around a short time, maybe it's the way things will be in the future and that's great and all, but I won't use it. I know I'm a dinosaur you win
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
87450 readers
3650 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Let us all be dinosaurs
I view them as two different tools entirely.
Did you think encyclopedia britannica was the internet?
Tools are supposed to be useful, all LLMs do is lie and degrade your mental faculties
Used incorrectly and without caution, yes. It can be made to be very useful if proper guardrails are in place and if the LLM is carefully guided in the task it's performing.
This means, that one should only use an LLM for something they are already quite familiar with doing without an LLM's assistance. Most people will not be doing this however (or in the case of Google's "summaries", unable to as they are not fully in control of the session), and this is where the problem arise.
The cost will never be worth it
You’re being purposefully obstinate.
I’m merely stating that a search engine and an LLM are two different technologies that are not really analogous to one another. They do not need to be merged into one as they serve different functions.
A German publisher's article on the case: https://www.heise.de/en/news/LG-Munich-I-Google-ordered-to-pay-for-false-statements-in-AI-summaries-11327217.html
Because while conventional search results merely present indexed third-party content with title, snippet, and link, the AI function generates a coherent, flowing text that evaluates multiple sources and summarizes them into an independent answer. From the perspective of average users, this appears as direct information from Google, not as a mere forwarding of third-party content.
The previous, rather limited liability of search engines for third-party content is therefore not transferable to this generative format, the chamber ruled. Instead, the usual standards for defamation law apply: untrue factual claims can be prohibited without Google being able to hide behind the automated AI process. The note “created with AI” does not change the attribution to Google.
That's really interesting. I've never really thought about it in this light, but a search engine's job is generally just to point you at a bunch of information that could be what your looking for. But they don't generate any content, so as a result they aren't really liable or in any way responsible for what you find, they aren't telling you anything.
But a generative AI, well those are very much their words, they don't have any link to hide behind, they are absolutely responsible for anything their AI tells you. This explicitly exposes them to legal risk in a way that they never were before.
I hope that in the rest of the world our courts can all make similar rulings. When people search for information you should not be allowed to generate something and provide them that answer as if it were a fact, without taking responsibility for it.