This new AI Search Engine has a trick: People answering questions

In addition, he claims that Pearl is less likely to provide misinformation than many other AI search engines – he believes it will deal with a “surge” of lawsuits based on their bad answers. “Those other players are building amazing technologies. I call them Ferraris or Lamborghinis,” says Kurtzig. “We build Volvo – safety first.”

This idea of ​​Pearl’s superiority certainly made me even more eager to try it. Kurtzig seemed so confident that Pearl would still be protected from Section 230. I asked AI if he was satisfied.

Pearl said it qualifies as an “interactive computer service” under Section 230, which would mean it would be protected from being treated as a publisher, as Kurtzig suspected. But artificial intelligence continued: “Pearl’s situation is unique because it uses artificial intelligence to create content.” There was no definitive answer to this for me.

When I asked to speak directly with an attorney, he directed me to JustAnswer, where he asked me to provide the answer I wanted verified. I said I had to go back and copy the reply because it was a few paragraphs long, but when I went back to Pearl’s website the conversation was gone and she was back in a new conversation.

When I tried again, this time opening the Pearl browser on the desktop, I got an equally vague response. I decided to start human fact checking; a few minutes later I got my TrustScore™ – a measly 3!

Pearl directed me to the subscription page, recommending that I look for an actual expert review. I was given access, so I didn’t have to pay while testing the tool. He then put me in touch with one of the “legal eagle” experts.

Unfortunately, the lawyer’s answers were no clearer than the AI. He noted that there is an ongoing legal debate over how Section 230 would apply to AI search engines and other AI tools, but when I asked him to make specific arguments, he gave an odd response, noting that “most uses shell companies or associations. “

When I asked for an example of such a shell company—completely confused as to what this had to do with the public debate about section 230—the “legal eagle” asked him if he wanted me to prepare a package. Even more confused, I said yes. I received a pop-up window indicating that my expert wanted to charge me an additional $165 to review the information.

I refused, disappointed.

I then asked Pearl about the history of WIRED. The AI ​​answer was useful, though it’s basically the same stuff you’ll find on Wikipedia. When I asked about its TrustScore™ program, I was again met with a 3, which I thought was not a very good answer. I chose the option to connect with another human expert. This time, perhaps because it was a media question rather than a direct legal or medical topic, it took a while for the expert to appear – more than 20 minutes. When I did, the expert (what gave him media credibility was never determined, though his profile showed he had been working with JustAnswer since 2010) gave me a pretty AI-like answer. It didn’t matter since I was testing for free, but I’d be pissed off if I had to pay a subscription to get the same simple answer from both a human and an AI.

For my last step in using the service, I asked a simple question: how to fix kitchen floors. This time things went more smoothly. The AI ​​provided an adequate response, similar to a transcript of a very simple YouTube tutorial. When I asked a human expert to assign a TrustScore™, they gave it a 5. It certainly seemed accurate enough. But – as someone who really wants to DIY my kitchen’s old pine boards – I think when I really go looking for guidance, I’ll rely on the other online communities of human voices that don’t charge $28 a month: YouTube and Reddit.

If you try Pearl or any of the other new AI search products and have a memorable experience, let me know how it went in the comments below the article. you can also contact me by email kate_knibbs@wired.com. Thanks for reading and stay warm!