Top
Best
New

Posted by bookofjoe 1/26/2026

Google AI Overviews cite YouTube more than any medical site for health queries(www.theguardian.com)
415 points | 208 commentspage 3
ChrisArchitect 1/26/2026|
Related:

Google AI Overviews put people at risk of harm with misleading health advice

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46471527

drsalt 1/27/2026||
the real promise of large language models is that before people were looking too closely, datasets had been procured in questionable ways. so then users can have access to medical data based on doctor's emails and word documents on their pc. which would have a lot of value. no it has become a glorified search engine.
quantumwoke 1/26/2026||
It's crazy to me that somewhere along the way we lost physical media as a reference point. Journals and YouTube can be good sources of information, but unless heavily confined to high quality information current AI is not able to judge citation quality to come up with good recommendations. The synthesis of real world medical experience is often collated in medical textbooks and yet AI doesn't cite them nearly as much as it should.
jeffbee 1/26/2026|
The vast majority of journal articles are not available freely to the public. A second problem is that the business of scientific journals has destroyed itself by massive proliferation of lower quality journals with misleading names, slapdash peer review, and the crisis of quiet retractions.
quantumwoke 1/26/2026||
There are actually a lot of freely available medical articles on PubMed. Agree about the proliferation of lower quality journals and articles necessitating manual restrictions on citations.
jgalt212 1/27/2026||
For straight up search Google is better, but for AI search I prefer Bing.
heliumtera 1/26/2026||
Ohhh, I would make one wild guess: in the upcoming llm world, the highest bidder will have a higher chance of appearing as a citation or suggestion! Welcome to gas town, so much productivity ahead!! For you and the high bidding players interested in taking advantage of you
gdulli 1/26/2026|
Exactly. This is the holy grail of advertising. Seamless and undisclosed. That, and replacing vast amounts of labor, are some of the only uses that justify the level of investment in LLM AI.
dbacar 1/26/2026||
What about the answers (regardless of the source)? Are they right or not?
ggnore7452 1/26/2026||
imo, for health related stuff. or most of the general knowledge doesn't require latest info after 2023. the internal knowledge of LLM is so much better than the web search augmented one.
winddude 1/26/2026||
google search has been on a down slope for awhile, it's all been because they focused on maximizing profits over UX and quality.
mikkupikku 1/26/2026||
Don't all real/respectable medical websites basically just say "Go talk to a real doctor, dummy."?

...and then there's WebMD, "oh you've had a cough since yesterday? It's probably terminal lung cancer."

gowld 1/26/2026|
WebMD is a real doctor, I guess. It's got an MD right in the name!
laborcontract 1/26/2026|
Google AI overviews are often bad, yes, but why is youtube as a source necessarily a bad thing? Are these researchers doctors? A close relative is a practicing surgeon and a professor in his field. He watches youtube videos of surgeries practically every day. Doctors from every field well understand that YT is a great way to share their work and discuss w/ others.

Before we get too worked up about the results, just look at the source. It's a SERP ranking aggregator (not linking to them to give them free marketing) that's analyzing only the domains, not the credibility of the content itself.

This report is a nothingburger.

ceejayoz 1/26/2026||
> A close relative is a practicing surgeon and a professor in his field. He watches youtube videos of surgeries practically every day.

A professor in the field can probably go "ok this video is bullshit" a couple minutes in if it's wrong. They can identify a bad surgeon, a dangerous technique, or an edge case that may not be covered.

You and I cannot. Basically, the same problem the general public has with phishing, but even more devastating potential consequences.

raincole 1/26/2026|||
The same can be said for average "medical sites" the Google search gives you anyway.
ceejayoz 1/26/2026|||
It's a lot easier for me to assess the Mayo Clinic's website being legitimate than an individual YouTuber's channel.
fc417fc802 1/26/2026|||
I don't think anyone is talking about "medical sites" but rather medical sites. Indeed "medical sites" are no better than unvetted youtube videos created by "experts".

That said, if (hypothetically) gemini were citing only videos posted by professional physicians or perhaps videos uploaded to the channel of a medical school that would be fine. The present situation is similar to an LLM generating lots of citations to vixra.

laborcontract 1/26/2026|||
Your comment doesn't address my point. The same criticism applies to any medium.
ceejayoz 1/26/2026||
The point is you can't say "an expert finds x useful in their field y" and expect it to always mean "any random idiot will find x useful in field y".
RobotToaster 1/26/2026||
Imagine going onto youtube and finding a video of yourself being operated on lol
More comments...