after effects

neé @open-love-letter: sometimes poet, always post enjoyer.

[vivienjustj]

I’ll be here.

[alliekills]

happy pride month! death to israel! <333

[elegybeatty]

🎰👶👍

BABY LOVE GAMBLING LET BABY GAMBLE

[elegybeatty]

#LETBABYGAMBLE

[elegybeatty]

GAMBLING BABY EMOJI PROPOSAL

[flareonfloof]

1-877-SLOTS-4-KIDZ

[elegybeatty]

Happy Pride!!!!

[lookcaitlin]

[formlab]

ZIL-29061, 19080-91

[cellnyc]

Rainbow over the LES

[pnglove]

[ilovetodrinkwater]

Simon and gar phone call

[sztupy]

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

[ayeforscotland]

Let’s fucking go

[made-in-manetheren]

This is HUGE.

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.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

[alianoralacanta]

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.

[unteriors]

Renova Street, Bramwell, West Virginia.

[eschocat]

[xliiliiliilx]

[yesterdaysprint]

The Waco Times-Herald, Texas, June 19, 1936

[floridensis]

in my last botany lab the professor had a prepared slide of diatoms set up for us to look at and i was not prepared for how delightful the slide looked

[glubshit]

[corrucyst]

dude, this is really scary, and liminal as well. It's like the bathrooms

[formlab]

Lights of New York City, Ernst Haas, 1970s

[cheaphalloweencostume]

all movies are for children because the moving image is inherently juvenile. to be entertained by it even moreso

[cerastes]

People don’t even say w00t anymore.

[cerastes]

This sux00rz…