Glory of Blog Titles

Solutions

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

you can play with just the ascii graphics for free

this is literally just a me thing, but I think the pixel art graphics are generic as hell, and the ascii graphics are a vibe

(via bsky)

Carolina Milanesi, an independent technology analyst, said Google is trying to make its cash cow business — search — richer and more personalized, and it will make shopping easier. But there is a risk that users may have fewer choices about what to click. "Right now it's: I ask a question, I get a bunch of answers and I feel that I'm in control as to which answer I take, or if I'm looking for something, which product I'm going to end up buying. That is going to be less so going forward," she said. Milanesi envisions AI-enabled search and agents proposing products to consumers — perhaps even those they have requested — but with less clarity or choice around where it's coming from. "If you're going to say: 'I want a pair of Jordans, go find them,' you're not necessarily sure what steps have been taken and whether the AI has used a source or a store that was paid for and therefore came up in the search results," she said, "or if AI actually went and did their due diligence and picked the best for me as a customer."

And here's one from Time magazine (May 20, 2026):

While Google already has “AI Mode,” the company will now power the whole search bar through its new Gemini 3.5 Flash model.  Instead of the classic list of blue links, Google Search will now also generate a custom page with an AI-generated summary of what you’re searching about, which will then trigger a conversation with AI Mode on the main page, allowing users to ask follow-up questions—similar to the kind of layout you would see when opening ChatGPT.

And a little more from Time's article on how this may affect the websites that we are trying to search for:

“It will severely cut into the main source of revenue for most publishers and it will disincentivize content creators who rely on organic search traffic, which is millions of websites, maybe more,” she told Technology Magazine.  

The reason was that, if you get pantsed, and you weren't in on the joke / it wasn't planned, that's a massive breakdown in respect and discipline, and you have to make an example of that kid (generally by wrestling them, and in serious cases, taking away candy privileges). But getting pranked is still a bad look, and makes it seem cool to rebel against your authority.

However, if you get pantsed, and you are in on the joke, everyone has a good laugh, including you, and no one was actually rebelling. It both makes you look like a cool authority figure and makes the person doing it look like they're the sort of person in cahoots with counselors. Then, if there's a behavioral issue, you can have that quiet conversation later, away from an audience.

And since those underwear are so culturally specific as punchlines in a pantsing gag that the only plausible reason to be wearing them is if you're in on a slapstick act, you can retroactively Shanghai any would-be prankster into looking like they did it with your consent and planning, which not only keeps you from indignity, it makes sure that they're rewarded by laughter and attention for looking like they're cooperating with the staff, encouraging that in the future and bringing them in from the outside of the social-reward structure you're trying to set up, where it's cool too be wacky but responsible.

That preparation effort paid off maybe four times across three years, but it was completely worth it.

Another line of his is “democracy is non-negotiable”

Yeah, New Vegas has a terrible no good very bad ending and three mostly morally grey endings. Point being that sometimes neutrality isn’t possible even in imperfect circumstances. You’ve gotta choose a side eventually even if that means some bad things happen.

yes but now i'm questioning who else you thought the pfp might be about like