Nobody needs AI to search the Internet, court says in ruling against Google

[reACTIONary]

34. If you look at a page from a "regular" web page search, do you....

.... "fact check" it? If so do you fact check the facts that you checked? Maybe you spend a lot of time doing recursive, circular, and probably redundant fact checking.

In other words, "some guy on the internet" or "some page on the internet" is not good enough by the standards you seem to be advocating, and, in the end, you would end up doing as much work with a regular search as you would with an AI search.

This exaggerated, paranoid level of fact checking that is supposedly required for an AI search result is not actually necessary and, if it were, would be just as required for a regular search. In both cases the same level of caution is required, based on the purpose and seriousness of the question, the complexity of the subject, and the background knowledge that the searcher brings to the activity.

In many cases the level of effort required for a reasonable level of caution is much less for an AI answer than for a "regular" search, because the AI search provides a link to several resources for each point in the answer. You can sometimes make an assessment just by knowing the source, often, for instance, Wikipedia. And you can click on the links and judge for yourself if something is sus.

This whole "AI is evil" panic is far too exaggerated and overly judgemental.