As funny as this is (and I do find it funny), it’s also concerning on a wider level. A good number of people trust these AI summaries; they shouldn’t, but they do. And if it’s this easy to poison the AIs, imagine how easy it is for someone with an actual agenda to mislead people in ways that aren’t as fantastical and quickly spotted.
I seem to recall reading recently that a court in Germany wanted to hold Google accountable for the content of its AI summaries. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong, please.) If companies are going to shove these models in people’s faces they should absolutely be responsible for the results. If your model can’t tell fact from fiction, stop publishing - and promoting - it as fact.
As funny as this is (and I do find it funny), it’s also concerning on a wider level. A good number of people trust these AI summaries; they shouldn’t, but they do. And if it’s this easy to poison the AIs, imagine how easy it is for someone with an actual agenda to mislead people in ways that aren’t as fantastical and quickly spotted.
I seem to recall reading recently that a court in Germany wanted to hold Google accountable for the content of its AI summaries. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong, please.) If companies are going to shove these models in people’s faces they should absolutely be responsible for the results. If your model can’t tell fact from fiction, stop publishing - and promoting - it as fact.
And DuckDuckGo AI is exceptionally bad. Like, other AI is bad too, but DuckDuckGo’s version is even behind the pack.