On top of that, he says Pearl is significantly less likely to provide misinformation than many other AI search engines – which he says are likely to face “a tidal wave” of lawsuits based on wrong answers they give. “These other players are building amazing technologies. I call them Ferraris or Lamborghinis,” says Kurtzig. “We build a Volvo: safety first. »
This argument about Pearl’s superiority of course made me want to try it even more. Kurtzig seemed so certain that Pearl would still benefit from the protections of Section 230. I asked the AI if she agreed.
Pearl said it likely qualifies as an “interactive computer service” under Section 230, which would mean it wouldn’t be treated as a publisher, just as Kurtzig suspected. But, AI continues, “Pearl’s situation is unique because it generates content using AI.” After all, there was no definitive answer for me.
When I asked to speak directly to an attorney, he redirected me to JustAnswer, where he asked me to provide the answer I wanted to verify. I said I had to go back and copy the response because it was several paragraphs long, but when I went back to Pearl’s website the conversation was gone and it was reset to a new discussion.
When I tried again, this time opening the Pearl browser on the desktop, I received a similarly uncertain response. I decided to trigger a human fact check; after several minutes, I received the TrustScore™: a measly 3!
Pearl recommended I seek out real expert advice, directing me to her subscription page. I had received a login, so I didn’t have to pay while I tested the tool. He then put me in touch with one of his “legal eagle” experts.
Unfortunately, the lawyer’s answers were no clearer than those of the AI. He noted that there is an ongoing legal debate over how Section 230 would apply to search engines and other AI tools, but when I asked him to provide specific arguments, he gave a response strange, noting that “most use shell companies or associations to submit their files. »
When I asked for an example of such a shell company – quite confused as to what this had to do with a public debate over Section 230 – the “legal eagle” asked me if I wanted it prepare a package. Even more confused, I said yes. I received a pop-up stating that my expert wanted to charge me an additional $165 to extract the information.
I refused, frustrated.
I then asked Pearl about the history of WIRED. The AI response was serviceable, although basically the same thing you’d find on Wikipedia. When I asked for their TrustScore™, I was again faced with a 3, suggesting it wasn’t a very good answer. I selected the option to connect with another human expert. This time, perhaps because it was a media issue and not a simple legal or medical matter, the expert took a while to appear – well over 20 minutes. When he did, the expert (it was never established what gave him his media bona fides, although his profile indicated he had been working with JustAnswer since 2010) gave me a remarkably similar response to that of AI. Since I was doing a free test, it didn’t matter, but I would have been annoyed if I had actually paid the subscription fee just to get the same mediocre response from a human and an AI.
For my last attempt at using the service, I asked myself a simple question: how to refinish kitchen floors. This time things went much more smoothly. The AI returned an adequate response, similar to a transcription of a very basic YouTube tutorial. When I asked the human expert to assign a TrustScore™, he gave it a 5. That seemed pretty accurate, of course. But, as someone who is serious about refinishing the old pine boards in my kitchen, I think when I’m looking for advice, I’ll rely on other online communities of human voices, ones that don’t charge $28 per month: YouTube. and Reddit.
If you end up testing Pearl or any other next-generation AI search product and have a memorable experience, let me know how it went in the comments below the article. You can also reach me by email at [email protected]. Thanks for reading and stay warm!