Following what I thought was a simple online search, I learnt an important lesson about the trustworthiness, or otherwise, of AI.
I asked Google the simple question; “Does ITV get money from the TV licence?” I was fairly certain that it doesn’t but wanted to double check before making that claim online. And as is now often the case, at the top of the Google results screen, I was offered the AI overview answer, which stated:
“Yes, ITV receives money from the TV license fee.”*
This ran counter to what I believed, so I needed to understand why I was wrong. The answer includes a little 🔗 icon to enable the viewer to see where the AI conclusion came from, so I had a look.
That link symbol provided me with three good, respected, official sources: the official TV Licencing website, a government document on the licence fee, and the section of the BBC website related to the licence fee and funding.
All good, then. I must have been mistaken.
Well, no. I still wanted to find out where I’d misunderstood the licence fee and what it funds!
The first source was the TV Licencing website. It told me what I need a TV licence for – which does include watching ITV, amongst other channels such as the BBC channels and Channel 4. However, in terms of what the licence fee funds, there was no mention of ITV. It explained that the funding goes towards the BBC TV channels, BBC Sounds( which covers radio, podcasts etc), the BBC website, BBC world service, the BBC apps and digital services.
I particularly liked the section on Christmas, where it made the point that the licence fee covers the cost of the BBC Christmas schedule of blockbuster films, old classics, alongside all the Christmas specials we’ve come to expect!
So, the first source didn’t back up the AI conclusion that ITV receives money from the licence fee. What about the next one?
This was a government research briefing document entitled ‘TV licence fee statistics’. Within the document there was one paragraph about what the licence fee pays for, which confirmed that it funds the BBC and some infrastructure projects, such as the delivery of superfast broadband. No mention of any money going to ITV. ITV was mentioned four times in the document, and each reference was in relation to falling live TV numbers as a comparison for falling BBC figures.
And finally, there was a link to a page about BBC governance, which explains that the BBC is primarily funded by the licence fee, supplemented by income from their commercial subsidiaries. It tells us that you need a licence to watch ITV – again, not that the licence fee funds ITV.
Google’s Gemini AI tool has taken sources that mention the licence fee and ITV and BBC and extrapolated: “The fee is needed to watch BBC and it funds the BBC; if it’s needed to watch ITV, it must, therefore, fund ITV.” And that’s not true.
Technically, Gemini hasn’t extrapolated, per se. The word ‘ITV’ is statistically associated with the words ‘licence fee’ in the identified links. But it is still not true. None of the sources it used to come to that conclusion showed it to be true, but the casual observer will assume it to be.
So please be vigilant. This is not a globally significant case study 😜 . But in an ever confused and confusing world, it’s indicative of a problem: we all need to be on our guard and aware of how AI can mislead.
* Yes, I know Google spelled *license* wrong! You try putting it right it on an iPhone that constantly autocorrects licence to license AND does the wiggly red line thing!