Nightjar

let's explore how this sort of thing can create issues. hagfish are an important part of benthic ecosystems and the carbon cycle due to being scavengers who are often among the first to arrive to corpses (sometimes before they're technically corpses. i'm warning you ahead of time so if you look into hagfish scavenging and predation you're aware) and whose feeding behaviors influence the behaviors of other benthic scavengers. they do this primarily through competition with other scavengers who eat soft tissues and through making different parts of the carcass more accessible by stripping those soft tissues. (sources: x, x) they also influence their environment by stirring up sediment when burrowing, which oxygenates the sediment (a big deal in the deep sea where oxygen is scarce) and loosens the substrate for use by other animals. (sources: x, x ) for this reason some scientists recognize hagfish as 'ecosystem engineers,' animals whose presence and actions have a significant effect on the ecology of the area they live in. (source: x)

this is not directly relevant to my questions about the reproductive biology of hagfish but it is very much connected, as not knowing how they reproduce impacts our ability to assess hagfish population stability. and it is very important that hagfish be able to maintain population stability. as of right now, policy decisions regarding deliberate fishing of hagfish and hagfish as bycatch are being made on limited, incomplete information about their life cycles that people may not be aware is limited and incomplete. after all, at this point i've found multiple sources that say 'hagfish reproduction works like this' and then when i dig deeper, the full statement is 'hagfish reproduction works like this (we think) (we're guessing) (no one actually knows for sure).' that's two different statements! those are VERY different levels of knowledge! it's irresponsible to present an unproven hypothesis as solid fact. but it's also socially rewarded to make confident-sounding statements and bury the uncertainties, and the majority of people just accept the surface and skim over the revealing details.

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.

Two boys practicing their swordplay, Harlem, 1939–1940.