According to Google, it will only cite sources if it literally copy-paste answers. So sometimes it says, but is rarely because of course it won't just copy-paste everything.
Yeah, I much prefer Bing's sourcing, though I'm less than pleased with it's sources. Bing likes to find a bunch of "Top 10" posts from content farms that answer whatever question I was asking.
I think LLMs still make up most of their answers, but use whatever links they find to generate context for the answers, so there is a lower possibility it'll generate confabulations. Of course, if the source is low-quality, it's just going to use that to justify a sloppy answer.
Still think it's better than me sorting through content farm posts. I look forward to next year's models that are trained on curated data sifting through well-sourced web sites.
*I like to add, "Only use educational or science journalism sources," to get higher quality links.
It is smarter than the previous beta, but yes, it's still throws some wild pitches, and without sources. Still a work in progress.