On top of that, he claims that Pearl is significantly less likely to provide misinformation than many other AI search engines – which he believes are likely to deal with a “flood” of lawsuits based on bad answers they give. “Those other players are building amazing technologies. I call them Ferrari or Lamborghini,” Kurtzig says. “We’re building Volvo—safety first.”
This argument about the superiority of Pearl, of course, made me even more eager to try it. Kurtzig seemed so confident that Pearl would still enjoy Section 230 protections. I asked the AI if it agreed.
Pearl said it probably qualifies as an “interactive computer service” under Section 230, which would mean it would be shielded from being treated as a publisher, just as Kurtzig suspected. But, the AI continued, “Pearl’s situation is unique because it generates content using AI.” It didn’t really have a definitive answer for me.
When I asked to speak directly with a lawyer, it redirected me to JustAnswer, where it asked me to provide the answer I wanted verified. I said I needed to go back and copy the reply because it was several paragraphs long, but when I navigated back to Pearl’s site, the conversation disappeared and it was restored to a fresh chat.
When I tried again, this time opening the Pearl browser on a desktop, I got a similarly uncertain response. I decided to start a human fact check; after a few minutes, I got the TrustScore™—a measly 3!
Pearl recommended that I seek out an actual expert opinion, taking me to its subscription page. I got to log in so I didn’t have to pay while I was testing the tool. It then connected me with one of its “legal eagle” experts.
Unfortunately, the lawyer’s answers were no clearer than the AI. He noted that there was 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 arguments, he gave an odd response noting that “most use shell companies or associations to file .”
When I asked for an example of such a shell company—quite confused as to what this had to do with the public debate over Section 230—the “legal eagle” asked if I wanted him to put together a package. Even more confused, I said yes. I got a pop up indicating that my expert wanted to charge me an additional $165 to dig up the information.
I refused, frustrated.
I then asked Pearl about the history of WIRED. AI’s answer was useful, although basically the same stuff you’ll find on Wikipedia. When I asked for its TrustScore™, I was again faced with a 3, suggesting that it is not a very good answer. I chose the option to connect with another human expert. This time, perhaps because it was a media issue and not a simple legal or medical issue, the expert took some time to appear—much more than 20 minutes. When he did, the expert (it was never established what gave him his media good faith, although his profile indicated that he had worked with JustAnswer since 2010) gave me a remarkably similar answer to the AI. Since I was taking a free test, it didn’t matter, but I would be annoyed if I actually paid the subscription fee only to get the same mediocre answer from both human and AI.
For my latest stab at using the service, I asked a simple question: how to refinish kitchen floors. This time, things went much more smoothly. The AI returned an appropriate response, similar to a transcription of a very basic YouTube tutorial. When I asked the human expert to assign a TrustScore™, they gave it a 5. It seemed pretty accurate, sure. But—as someone who really wants to DIY my kitchen’s old countertops—I think when I’m actually looking for guidance, I’ll rely on another online community of human voices that doesn’t pay $28 a month: YouTube. and Reddit.
If you end up trying Pearl, or any other new AI search products, and you have a memorable experience, please let me know how it went in the comments below the article. You can also contact me by email at kate_knibbs@wired.com. Thanks for reading, and stay warm!
