Live data from Hacker News

German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

the-decoder.com

41–50 of 587 posts

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#41
I've found a fun and pretty reliable way to get Gemini to output incorrect information: Ask for a chapter by chapter summary of a book.

I first tried it to remind me of what happened in a previous book in a series that I was reading. When I realized it was either misstating plot points or straight up hallucinating, I tried it on a bunch more books to amuse myself.

Older classics are of course more accurate, but for newer or less popular books Gemini won't shy away from giving you a summary culled from misinterpreted Reddit threads and Goodreads reviews. It's like getting a secondhand account from someone who talked to another person who had read the book a long time ago. You get the general gist of it, but with some added flavor.

Even if you upload an entire epub of a book, the results aren't stellar. Rather than a Cliffs Note's quality summary, they're pretty sparse or leave out important bits of information. One chapter summary I got back made a point of describing what one of the characters was wearing, even though it had absolutely zero to do with anything else. Yes, that's technically a "summary", but not quite my tempo.

If Google wants to present summaries of websites in anything more than a very, very superficial description, they're going to have to improve their model's ability to understand context and importance. In theory, a novel is a self-contained bundle of text, so pulling accurate information out of it should be straight forward. A website is naturally going to be way more of a challenge.

All that said, I find the AI summaries from Google/Gemini to be quite useful and a time saver, but I know to always double check something if it's at all important.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#42
post #18

Good. The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. Same as it works with employees. Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger. But watch as Germany soon loses AI Google results.

> Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger

Mercedes-Benz does this in limited cases. Waymo does it generally. (In China, Level 4 and 5 transfers risk to the manufacturer. This is the correct way to do it.)

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#43
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What don’t you understand? Those websites that defame a company are liable for that defamation. In this case Google defamed a company in its AI summary and is this liable for that defamation.

So if I edit a Wikipedia article to share that consuming poison is safe and someone consumes poison after reading it… is Wikipedia legally liable?

> is Wikipedia legally liable?

Directly? Quite possibly. They'd then have to transfer that liability to you.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly the point of the ruling, though... they are saying that AI summaries are NOT the same as search. If Google was just returning search results, and then users clicked on a website and read the content there, Google is not responsible for the content. If instead Google gives you an answer right there on google.com, without going to another site, they ARE responsible for it. That makes sense to me?

why? tons of websites push misinformation intentionally. is there a truth requirement anywhere? i don’t get why this is a thing at all

There is absolutely a truth requirement.

This is why you have to say "I think this person is a murderer" and not "This person is a murderer."

One is opinion. One is fact.

This isn't super hard.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#45
post #14

I'm surprised this is even a thing. After all, you go to Google not for the truth, but to search Google. Since when is truthiness the "guarantee of service"? You're not even paying for a google service, search is free... You might be the product, and your data, but you didn't directly pay for a service and they didn't sell you a fake service. I'm not taking Google's side, this isn't about whether it's right or wrong…

The title is misleading IMO. It should say "German ruling declares Google liable for libel in AI Overviews"

I was prepared to say the same thing as you but after reading it seems totally fair.

The key difference is that this would be illegal if a human wrote it too.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#46
post #29

Does this extend to ads displayed in search results? Because they absolutely should be liable for the scams they advertise also.

> Does this extend to ads displayed in search results?

Probably not, for the same reason search results aren't an issue.

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#48
post #18

Good. The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. Same as it works with employees. Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger. But watch as Germany soon loses AI Google results.

> The true mark of AGI

Can we just trash this as a marketing term? If/when AGI arrives there will be no point quibbling over competency. What we are looking at is just bad search results

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#49
post #14

I'm surprised this is even a thing. After all, you go to Google not for the truth, but to search Google. Since when is truthiness the "guarantee of service"? You're not even paying for a google service, search is free... You might be the product, and your data, but you didn't directly pay for a service and they didn't sell you a fake service. I'm not taking Google's side, this isn't about whether it's right or wrong…

That's the difference between returning search results and interpreting the information and summarising them. If a newspaper says 'so-and-so has been arrested for theft' it's not the same as them summarising to 'so-and-so is a thief', the second is potentially libel. Why should Google be held to a different standard?

Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

#50
post #18

Good. The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. Same as it works with employees. Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger. But watch as Germany soon loses AI Google results.

Banning all technology because someone might misuse it is an illogical extreme.

As far as I can tell the ruling is more nuanced. If AI is defaming you, there needs to be a way to correct the record.

A company being open to liability does not mean it is always liable, just that it can be if it really messes up (especially if there are aggravating circumstances, e.g. you need to drag them to court to issue a correction).

Post reply on HN