> You go to it, and then you go back and look at more results to get a more complete picture. See where those different sites disagree and where they agree.
Me and others I know follow this workflow when we try to find out the answer to some question we don't know the answer to.
But the vast majority of people outside of my own personal friend circle don't seem to approach it like this. Their approach looks more like:
1. Search for thing
2. Read the first info-box that pops up, if it does. That's what they think is 100% the correct information. If no info-box:
3. Read the short description for the first link that appears (sometimes an ad) and take that as the correct answer.
Ideally, people would be more careful, but I haven't seen that in practice.
Yeah I guess I have honestly seen the same thing, my hands are full so I ask my partner to search something and the number of times he has said "google says x" makes me quite concerned.
But at least those info boxes are not generating text on its own, it's what is on the website already and clearly includes a source.
At least though, if you are even only looking at that first result it's still different than google ai generating an answer. Barely different, but different.
Me and others I know follow this workflow when we try to find out the answer to some question we don't know the answer to.
But the vast majority of people outside of my own personal friend circle don't seem to approach it like this. Their approach looks more like:
1. Search for thing
2. Read the first info-box that pops up, if it does. That's what they think is 100% the correct information. If no info-box:
3. Read the short description for the first link that appears (sometimes an ad) and take that as the correct answer.
Ideally, people would be more careful, but I haven't seen that in practice.