So why GP reasoning doesn't apply to Google AI snippets and you consider it a straw-man? Classic search results are clearly not Google's, they just match (or not) with your search query, then you go there and read them (and trust them or not depending on your own criteria or absence of). But a text, generated by Google, put as the first paragraph of text under your search, answering in plain English to a specific question you just asked, what should a disclaimer like that supposed to be? A "read it but discard it because it could be factually wrong"? Why are they showing it topmost?

I do understand it is a complicated matter, but looks like Google just want to be there, no matter what, in the GenAI race. How much will it take for those snippets to be sponsored content? They are marketing them as the first thing a Google user should read.

Where do you draw the line then? I doubt the AI is assessing the risk of 'what happens if I fuck this up', so perhaps the feature should be removed?

Reading your comments in context of the thread you're on, you think the disclaimer is sufficient to do things up to and including falsely claiming public figures have opposite views to their true ones on the Israel-Gaza conflict.

Considering the extent to which people have very strong opinions about "their" side in the conflict, to the point of committing violent acts especially when feeling betrayed, I don't think spreading this particular piece of disinformation is any less potentially dangerous than the things I listed.

Since you are clearly an AI enjoyer I asked my local LLM to summarize your feelings for me. It said:

> As evidenced by the quote "I think a disclaimer is a carte blanche to do literally anything", the hackernews user <gruez> is clearly of the opinion that it is indeed ok to do whatever you want, as long is there is a sign stating it might happen.

* This text was summarized by the SpaceNugget LLM and may contain errors, and thusly no one can ever be held accountable for any mistakes herein.