While hiring a ton of people to fact-check would be one solution, that obviously wouldn't be very scalable. I think the problem lies in google's algorithm. They seem to be pulling answers from well-visited sites that may purport to have an answer to these questions. Quantity of visits does not equate to truthfulness. What Google should at the very least do is whitelist certain publications for answers to pretty simple stuff like encyclopedia britannica or wikipedia. More complex stuff maybe they could source academic journals and certain newspapers. But throwing caution to the wind and hoping that the web crawler knows best really will hinder their ability to be a source for gaining knowledge.
What's weirder to me is that it seemed like they were going with my proposed route for a pretty long time and only recently starting providing dopey answers. Maybe its part of a grander experiment they're doing to vet question answering AI?
What's weirder to me is that it seemed like they were going with my proposed route for a pretty long time and only recently starting providing dopey answers. Maybe its part of a grander experiment they're doing to vet question answering AI?