/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Experts warn of a “hallucination” problem with ChatGPT and LaMDA, as these chatbots take what they have learned and reshape it without regard for what is true

Siri, Google Search, online marketing and your child's homework will never be the same.  Then there's the misinformation problem.

New York Times Cade Metz

Context & Ripple Effects

The warning arrived as Google was reportedly weighing LaMDA's reputational risk against the danger of conceding ground to ChatGPT. That makes reliability a competitive constraint, not merely a model-quality issue.

Later coverage described ChatGPT filling missing information with plausible language and found it can repeat misleading narratives in convincing prose. The issue matters more as assistants are placed in search and voice interfaces, including Siri's reported ChatGPT search integration.

First-order effects

  • ChatGPT and LaMDA face an immediate credibility problem: polished answers cannot be treated as dependable merely because they sound authoritative.
  • Google's decision on LaMDA becomes a trade-off between moving quickly against ChatGPT and limiting reputational damage from inaccurate outputs.

Second-order effects

Third-order effects

  • As assistants become a work surface for search and voice tasks, differentiation shifts from generating answers to establishing which answers users can verify and trust.
  • The pattern points to generative systems accumulating editorial debt: wider distribution raises the cost of each ungrounded response for the platforms that embed them.

The trend: Generative assistants are moving into high-distribution interfaces while reliability and provenance become central competitive requirements.

Discussion

  • @nytimes @nytimes on x
    Siri, Google Search, online marketing and your child's homework will never be the same thanks to new and more advanced chat bots. But then there's the misinformation problem. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @nytimestech @nytimestech on x
    A new generation of chatbots could eventually change how we learn and find information online. But like a great screenwriter, they have a habit of stretching the truth. https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @conservcacao @conservcacao on x
    “You could program millions of these bots to appear like humans, having conversations designed to convince people of a particular point of view. I have warned about this for years. Now it is obvious that this is just waiting to happen.” https://www.nytimes.com/...
  • @drewharwell Drew Harwell on x
    AI text is very much not just a toy anymore, and there are already some fascinating real-world use cases. But there are also some serious downsides; it's like “this hand grenade rolling down the hallway toward everything.” Here's how ChatGPT puts it: https://www.washingtonpost.co…
  • @drewharwell Drew Harwell on x
    New: Stumbling with their words, some people let AI do the talking. ChatGPT is saying all the things people wish they could say to their clients, landlords, girlfriends and kids. It's also a great cheating tool, secretly racist and often deceptively wrong https://www.washingtonpo…
  • @carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
    Google employees explain why we haven't seen ChatGPT like functionality in their products; the cost to serve an AI result is 10x to 100x as high as a regular web search today plus they're too slow relative to how quick search results must be returned. https://twitter.com/...
  • @emollick Ethan Mollick on x
    These two paragraphs are a business strategy case. Google has a massive business model built on assumptions about how search works. It could win the AI battle, but at the cost of its business. (👀 also, Google's internal AI is much better than ChatGPT!) https://bigtechnology.subst…
  • @levie Aaron Levie on x
    ChatGPT will likely play out exactly as innovator's dilemma suggests. To an expert in any given field, it has worse answers. But most people don't have access to experts for everything, so it actually is a productivity boost to everyone else.
  • @levie Aaron Levie on x
    If Amazon launched Alexa on the web and mobile, powered by ChatGPT, it could be game over.
  • @paulfabretti Paul Fabretti on x
    Fascinating short piece about compute power requirements and high-requirements services. https://twitter.com/...
  • @unknownmetric Ada Powers on x
    I don't actually care about AI in search results, I just want to slowly fall in love with the virtual representative of a multinational corporation that lives in a wireless speaker as a form of dystopic performance art https://twitter.com/...
  • @duderichy Rich on x
    ChatGPT is also not even close to accurate (yet anyways) https://twitter.com/...
  • @thevunderkind @thevunderkind on x
    I don't think this is why we haven't seen it on Google. It feels like a post-hoc rationalization. https://twitter.com/...
  • @dennishxu Dennis Xu on x
    This is going to appear on some business school case study some day (in the not so distant future) about disruption. https://twitter.com/...
  • @aparanjape Amit Paranjape on x
    Interesting... maybe there is space for both? Quick, free search (current Google search) Paid (subscription model?), slow search (ChatGPT like) https://twitter.com/...
  • @trungtphan Trung Phan on x
    Real interesting notes on why Google hasn't rolled out its latest AI chat tools https://twitter.com/...
  • @artemr Artem Russakovskii on x
    Interesting insight into ChatGPT-level AI search results in Google. https://twitter.com/...
  • @kevin_indig @kevin_indig on x
    we don't speak about the cost of large language models enough, yet. Different beast when going mass market. https://twitter.com/...
  • @rafat @rafat on x
    Well worth a read and lot more in depth reporting and writing needed on this. Good one by ⁦@Kantrowitz⁩. https://open.substack.com/...
  • @statesdj David States MD PhD on x
    Does Google have a Kodak problem? Kodak invented digital photography and patented the first portable digital camera, but they were wedded to the film cash cow. Is Google sitting on AI because it doesn't want to kill the ad business cash cow? https://twitter.com/...
  • @zacharygraves Zach Graves on x
    “The company makes money when people click ads next to search results, and it's awkward to fit ads into conversational replies. Imagine receiving a response and then immediately getting pitched to go somewhere else — it feels slimy, and unhelpful” https://twitter.com/...
  • @kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz on x
    How did Google get beat by OpenAI on ChatGPT? It's long promised that the future of search will be conversational. I spoke with some people who've worked inside the company. It wasn't a blind spot. https://bigtechnology.substack.com/ ... via @BigTechnology