On top of this, he claims that Pearl is significantly less likely to provide misinformation than many other AI search engines – something he believes will prevent a “tide of lawsuits” based on the poor answers they provide. There is a possibility of dealing with the “wave”. “Those other players are creating amazing technologies. “I call them Ferraris or Lamborghinis,” says Kurtzig. “We're building a Volvo—safety first.”
Of course, this talk about Pearl's superiority made me even more eager to try it. Kurtzig was so confident that Pearl would still enjoy Section 230 protection. I asked AI if he agreed.
Pearl said it probably qualified 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, AI added, “Pearl is uniquely positioned because it creates content using AI.” Ultimately I had no definite answer.
When I asked to speak directly to an attorney, he redirected me to JustAnswer, where he asked me to provide the answers I wanted to verify. I said I needed to go back and copy the reply, because it was several paragraphs long, but when I went back to the Perl website, the conversation was over and it had reset to a new chat.
When I tried again, this time by opening the Perl browser on the desktop, I got the same indeterminate answer. I decided to launch a human-fact investigation; After several minutes, I received a TrustScore™—just a 3!
Pearl suggested I get a real expert's opinion while porting it to its membership page. I was given a log-in so that I didn't have to pay while testing the tool. It then connected me to one of its “Legal Eagle” experts.
Unfortunately, the lawyer's answers were no more clear than the AI. He said there is an ongoing legal debate about how Section 230 would apply to AI search engines and other AI tools, but when I asked him to provide specific reasoning, he gave a strange answer, saying that “most people “Use shell companies or associations to file.”
When I asked for an example of one such shell company – quite confused as to what it had to do with the public debate about Section 230 – “Legal Eagle” asked if I wanted one. Prepare the package. Even more confused, I said yes. I got a pop-up window indicating that my specialist wanted to charge me an additional $165 to get the information.
I refused in disappointment.
Then I asked Pearl about the history of WIRED. The AI response was serviceable, although basically the same content you'd find on Wikipedia. When I asked about its TrustScore™ I was once again faced with a 3, which showed that it wasn't a very good answer. I opted to connect with another human expert. This time, possibly because it was a question about the media and not a direct legal or medical topic, it took a little longer for the expert to appear – about more than 20 minutes. When he did so, the expert (it was never established what his media credentials were, although his profile indicated he had been working with JustAnswer since 2010) gave me an answer remarkably similar to an AI. Since I was doing a free trial it didn't matter, but I would have been annoyed if I had actually paid a subscription fee to get the same average answer from both a human and an AI.
In my last attempt to use the service, I ran into a straightforward question: how to refinish a kitchen floor. This time, things went more smoothly. The AI gave an answer similar enough to the transcript of a very basic YouTube tutorial. When I asked a human expert to assign a TrustScore™, he gave it a 5. It certainly felt pretty accurate. But—as someone who really wants to repurpose my kitchen's old pine planks by DIY—I find that when I actually go looking for guidance, I'll rely on other online communities of human voices. Which don't charge $28 per month: YouTube and Reddit.
If you test Pearl, or any other new AI search product, and have a memorable experience, please let me know how it went in the comments below the article. You can also contact me by email kate_knibbs@wired.comThanks for reading, and stay warm!