A ScAIry Time
On Thursday there was the sad news that Mani from the Stone Roses had passed away. They were my favourite band during my first year of uni. 'Fools Gold', 'I Wanna Be Adored', and 'I Am The Resurrection' just blew me away. Or maybe transported me away would be a better description.
I’ve been lucky enough to have seen them a couple of times, including in the Royal Court, Liverpool. Back in the day. It was on a Friday night when our company was having their Christmas do. An afternoon meal and a few drinks. Then a few mates and colleagues were going to go above and beyond b seeing the mighty Stone Roses (the company hadn’t got us tickets for that).
‘‘Twas the best Xmas Do I’ve ever had anyway. The other day, with the Mani news, I’d wanted to check the date. I’d remembered it was the 15th December, but wasn’t sure of the year. I typed into Google Search ‘Stone Roses Royal Court Liverpool’ to check the date. It was an interesting search. I found the year, and the set list, on Setlist.fm. This was the third item down the search findings, the second was details on a Bootleg of the gig. The very top item was not from the general search items, but an AI summary. This was erroneous. According to the AI item—at the top of the search—it stated that the Stone Roses never played the Royal Court. This despite a) me and my mates having been there, b) there being a bootleg of the gig, c) there being a set list from the gig. All on the first page of the Google results! How does AI ignore the findings on the very first page of the search.
Stone Roses Set List—Royal Court, Liverpool, 15-12-1995.
Personally I’d rather not see an AI summary anyway, and whilst I know it happened—I was fucking there, for Christ’s sake. It does make you wonder how many people just read the top line and take it as gospel. And while it may not be that important in this case, what other things does it wrongly say hasn’t happened or doesn’t exist? Black IPAs, white dog poo back in the 70s, The Holocaust etc? All a bit scary really.
It’d like to opt out of AI summaries in Google search. I’ll have to ask Google if I can. But can I believe what it tells me?
I’ve been lucky enough to have seen them a couple of times, including in the Royal Court, Liverpool. Back in the day. It was on a Friday night when our company was having their Christmas do. An afternoon meal and a few drinks. Then a few mates and colleagues were going to go above and beyond b seeing the mighty Stone Roses (the company hadn’t got us tickets for that).
‘‘Twas the best Xmas Do I’ve ever had anyway. The other day, with the Mani news, I’d wanted to check the date. I’d remembered it was the 15th December, but wasn’t sure of the year. I typed into Google Search ‘Stone Roses Royal Court Liverpool’ to check the date. It was an interesting search. I found the year, and the set list, on Setlist.fm. This was the third item down the search findings, the second was details on a Bootleg of the gig. The very top item was not from the general search items, but an AI summary. This was erroneous. According to the AI item—at the top of the search—it stated that the Stone Roses never played the Royal Court. This despite a) me and my mates having been there, b) there being a bootleg of the gig, c) there being a set list from the gig. All on the first page of the Google results! How does AI ignore the findings on the very first page of the search.
Stone Roses Set List—Royal Court, Liverpool, 15-12-1995.
Personally I’d rather not see an AI summary anyway, and whilst I know it happened—I was fucking there, for Christ’s sake. It does make you wonder how many people just read the top line and take it as gospel. And while it may not be that important in this case, what other things does it wrongly say hasn’t happened or doesn’t exist? Black IPAs, white dog poo back in the 70s, The Holocaust etc? All a bit scary really.
It’d like to opt out of AI summaries in Google search. I’ll have to ask Google if I can. But can I believe what it tells me?
blog comments powered by Disqus