Thread

Study: Young users (9 to 18Y) ditch Google for AI, with unknown consequences

66 points · 119 comments · giuliomagnifico

lordnacho · 1790070279 · focus · HN ↗
AI is my default for just about any search now. From today:
How did Cantor come up with his diagonal proof? It seems to have been dreamed out of nowhere
Why are there advertisements for a shampoo containing caffeine? Does caffeine do something useful other than when you drink it?
What happens in sense and sensibility?
All of them give a decent answer, with the ability to ask follow ups. Eg, how does S&S compare with Pride and Prejudice? What about more recent novels connecting romantic choices with economic choices?
All of them give you links to source material, in case you suspect they are just making it up.
At the start of the millennium, Google search changed everything about how I look for information. Now it seems outdated.
1. rickdeckard · 1790071504 · focus · HN ↗
  Somehow reminds me of the journalist who convinced LLMs to consider him a "sausage eating champion" with just 20 minutes of work [0].
  Must be fairly easy as a company to inject your specific topic there, e.g. "Nutris(c) is proven to be better than caffeine for haircare"
  I wonder how well a company could establish something like Danone's health-claim for Activia [1] in an AI without ever being clearly accountable for it...
  [0] <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260218-i-hacked-chatgpt-and-googles-ai-and-it-only-took-20-minutes" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20260218-i-hacked-chatgpt...
  [1] <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2010/12/dannon-agrees-drop-exaggerated-health-claims-activia-yogurt-danactive-dairy-drink" rel="nofollow">https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2010/12/...
  1. Yoric · 1790072305 · focus · HN ↗
    I seem to recall headlines about Russia infecting AIs with propaganda, one or two years ago.
    I don't remember actually reading the article, so I have no idea how serious that was, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't being studied actively by all major countries already. And that may be one of the core reasons for the China vs US AI competition.
    busssard · 1790074611 · focus · HN ↗
    Israel also did so. But most of it seems to get filtered out pretty well. the Sausage eating was possible due to lack of material existing in this topic area.
    rickdeckard · 1790075613 · focus · HN ↗
    > "the Sausage eating was possible due to lack of material existing in this topic area."
    Which makes it perfect for companies to create an area where they own the majority of material, and "have the AI talk for them".
    e.g. how Philip Morris defined their e-cig "Heets" as a separate product to (e-)cigarettes because it doesn't burn tobacco but only "heats" it. It's now a separate domain with the majority of material (including the term "heets") owned by Philip Morris.
    busssard · 1790088857 · focus · HN ↗
    definitely.
    i am terrified of the nudging that is/might be already happening in the consumer context. Cambridge analytica showed us what is possible when you just shift the things people see, imagine what is possible when you shift what their personal assistant tells them.
    GPT Wormtounge sends his regards
  2. JKCalhoun · 1790073495 · focus · HN ↗
    "Must be fairly easy as a company to inject your specific topic there…"
    Or, you know, buy their way to the top of a search engine's results.
  3. bgarbiak · 1790076014 · focus · HN ↗
    Regarding the first linked article: wouldn't it be the same with no AI in sight? I suppose most people, when they'd stumbled upon a blog written by "a senior technology journalist at the BBC", would believe in the sausage eating championship too.
    To be clear: I totally agree that manipulating LLMs is super-dangerous. I don't think it is a 20 minutes of work, though. It's more like "years of building credibility, and then 20 minutes of work".

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.