remix logo

Hacker Remix

Has anyone else found Google's AI overview to be oddly error prone?

43 points by ckemere 5 days ago | 38 comments

I've been quite impressed by Google's AI overviews. This past week, though, I was interested in what I thought was a fairly simple question - to calculate compound interest.

Specifically, I was curious about how Harvard's endowment has grown from its initial £780 in 1638, so I asked Google to calculate compound interest for me. A variety of searches all yield a reasonable formula which is then calculated to be quite wrong. For example: {calculate the present value of $100 compounded annually for 386 years at 3% interest} yields $0.736. {how much would a 100 dollar investment in 1638 be worth in 2025 if invested} yields $3,903.46. {100 dollars compounded annually for 386 years at 3 percent} yields "The future value of the investment after 386 years is approximately $70,389." And my favorite: {100 dollars compounded since 1638} tells me a variety of outcomes for different interest rates: "A = 100 * (1 + 0.06)^387 A ≈ 8,090,950.14 A = 100 * (1 + 0.05)^387 A ≈ 10,822,768.28 A = 100 * (1 + 0.04)^387 A ≈ 14,422,758.11"

How can we be so reasonable and yet so bad!?

joegibbs 5 days ago

It's terrible. Gemini 2.5 Pro is great, but the AI overviews must be using a smaller model. I hate it when I look up something niche and it smugly tells me that I must be mistaken because there is no such thing. Also it gives annoyingly family-friendly responses to questions that it would be better off not responding to. The other day I was trying to find a Sopranos quote about two kinds of businesses being recession-proof, one of which being "certain aspects of entertainment" (i.e. prostitution) and it was telling me the certain aspects were filmmaking and music because they make people happy.

cma 5 days ago

Why wouldn't they use 2.5 flash first, and then if an identical query is made by lots of people rerun it with 2.5 pro? Sometimes it seems much more error prone than 2.5 pro or even 2.0 even on common searches.

nitwit005 5 days ago

It seems expectedly error prone.

Aside from the general limitations of this technology, Google needs this to be quite cheap if it runs for every request.

There is not a lot of revenue for a single search, and right now the AI results are actually pushing the links people are paying Google to display further down the page.

mergy 5 days ago

They are awful often for me. Examples - recommending installation of packages and software that doesn't exist, or settings changes that don't exist I In applications, etc. They fill the page but it's sadly noise so it cheapens the whole experience when I would have just preferred a link to a page from a person that knows what the hell they are talking about.

whatamidoingyo 5 days ago

> recommending installation of packages and software that doesn't exist

"slopsquatting" is the term coined for this.

Essentially, bad actors are registering these packages and uploading malware. If you happen to just blindly follow the AI, there's a chance your system gets infected.

Hojojo 4 days ago

There was this Reddit post yesterday where it completely makes up being able to plant flowers in Elden Ring https://www.reddit.com/r/Eldenring/comments/1k6hupy/thanks_g...

The AI overview is worse than useless. It either hallucinates things or it treats shitposts as equally valid information-wise as anything else.