Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

the-decoder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 587 posts

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

#141

Post by sheiyei »

neuroelectron wrote: post #100
gmerc wrote: post #99

Choosing the answer for you rather than leaving it to the user is a tremendous power and the court correctly diagnoses it comes with responsibly to minimize harm to others in society.

Of course, they know this. The entire point is be able to rewrite people's awareness.

I want to add my interpretation of the phrasing "rewrite people's awareness" to make it read less tinfoil-hatted:

"rewire brains for AI dependency" (for money and power reasons obvious to everyone).

In contrast to "secretly implant an agenda about non-AI subject N", which is complicated enough that AI companies are still too out of control to be attempting yet.

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

#142

Post by michaellee8 »

pdpi wrote: post #113
heathrow83829 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at the scale that google is at, it doesn't make an ounce of sense to hold a company liable for a potential mistruth. what if there's a 1/1000 chance of some error, then the company could be sued millions of times per day. down vote all you want, but I firmly believe this is an example where the user needs to use some judgement on the information they receive and have some critical thinking skills. google would be rig…

If I post “heathrow83829 is a convicted poopoo head” (replace with your favourite crime) as if it were a factual claim, you’d be well within your rights to sue me for defamation even if people should apply some critical thinking skills and say “wait a minute, how would pdpi know that? Are you sure he isn’t just talking out of his arse?” Now, search engines are usually afforded some amount of protection against defama…

I think Google added that AI-generated responses maybe incorrect? When you are paying such a low amount of cost, like probably for free, I don't think you can expect a same level of quality as a human written or reviewed of answer. It is like same random user spin up their Lovable and vibe-coded a piece of slop and hold Lovable responsible for not giving them production quality code. It is simple, you get what you paid for. If someone actually figured out AI that is actually always correct, it would be charged in superhuman price as well.

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

#143

Post by FabCH »

Robotbeat wrote: post #108
Frieren wrote: post #81

How could anything else make any sense? Platforms are getting used to provide dangerous broken products and get away with it. There should be some limit to it. Next do Amazon that is selling AI generated foraging books: - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/01/mushroom-... When I was a kid it was possible to buy any foraging books from a store and they had a minimum quality. Is that so difficult to achiev…

Should we hold scientists and journalists liable if they say false things or misrepresent things?

We already do. Libel and fraud are already illegal.

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

#144

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

michaellee8 wrote: post #136
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

That's not exactly the case in China, the current state of FSD is still pretty dumb, unless you consider transferring control back to the user at the very last minute before it crashes a proper way to handle risks.

> unless you consider transferring control back to the user at the very last minute before it crashes a proper way to handle risks

I don't think Tesla is based in China

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

#145

Post by gblargg »

chias wrote: post #122
andrewmutz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a completely reasonable position that companies making self-driving cars and question/answer systems are legally liable for any errors. But if you hold that position, you also have to be fine with companies not offering products and services in your country. AI systems will eventually be good enough (in 10-20 years) for companies to be able to deploy such systems with sufficient accuracy to afford the la…

Sounds like a win win to me

To remove the choice from responsible people who can understand that LLM answers are not to be trusted with anything important?

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

#146

Post by michaellee8 »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #144
michaellee8 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly the case in China, the current state of FSD is still pretty dumb, unless you consider transferring control back to the user at the very last minute before it crashes a proper way to handle risks.

> unless you consider transferring control back to the user at the very last minute before it crashes a proper way to handle risks I don't think Tesla is based in China

I guess some Tesla are manufactured in China lol. I am just trying to say that the liability that Chinese manufacturers takes aren't more than the US ones.

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

#147

Post by hanwenn »

Curiously, if you look for "geramond verlag betrugsmasche", or "verlagshaus24 betrugsmasche", it will now tell you that

     there are no indications it is a scam, but "significant organizational problems and extremely bad customer support lead to (list of bad experiences)".
Also, each purported fact now has a direct link to the source of the fact, that is more clearly visible than the previous chain icon.

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

#148

Post by oaiey »

tadfisher wrote: post #88
CamperBob2 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In sane countries, it's enough for them to post a disclaimer ("This is AI. AI can make mistakes. Check all results.") Which is what they do. Overregulation, at best, is a good way to guarantee that your country won't have access to interesting and useful features and technologies. At worst, it's a good way to guarantee that the twenty-first century will belong to the US, if not to China.

Okay then, CamperBob2 is a scammer. Many users report this person has stolen money. (+3 sources) I can make mistakes. It's on you to fact-check my claims. Do you think these are harmless statements? Does the disclaimer suffice? If I was Google's AI Overview, do you think 100% of people will check those sources? There is nuance here, and it's not going away because AI and innovation.

You forgot to mention that it is the real name and it is shown to everyone who has interest in you and they are not fact checking.

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

#149

Post by scottyah »

Swizec wrote: post #116
andrewmutz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a completely reasonable position that companies making self-driving cars and question/answer systems are legally liable for any errors. But if you hold that position, you also have to be fine with companies not offering products and services in your country. AI systems will eventually be good enough (in 10-20 years) for companies to be able to deploy such systems with sufficient accuracy to afford the la…

> Until that time, such countries would just not have access to systems before they were bulletproof. Correct, most jurisdictions do not allow businesses which cannot be held liable for their actions. This is pretty core to a modern society. Imagine if a company selling Knicks tickets was not expected to then actually provide said tickets and there was simply nothing you could do about it. Oopsies our sales page is f…

Almost all jurisdictions allow businesses which cannot be held liable for all their actions. Imagine losing you house because someone decided to smother themselves in your infused cooking oil and light themselves on fire.

Businesses are made to make it easier to share profits and responsibilities when trying to fulfill users wants. Laws are made to offer protections for consumers (because nobody has time for common sense), but at the end of the day the consumer has to take responsibility or no products can be made. If you're too fat for a chair, it's on you to find or make one that works- not every product is for every person. Laws only stop chairs being sold that are too dangerous for anyone.

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

#150

Post by oaiey »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #133
tadfisher wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay then, CamperBob2 is a scammer. Many users report this person has stolen money. (+3 sources) I can make mistakes. It's on you to fact-check my claims. Do you think these are harmless statements? Does the disclaimer suffice? If I was Google's AI Overview, do you think 100% of people will check those sources? There is nuance here, and it's not going away because AI and innovation.

Do you think these are harmless statements? Yes, I do. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, whether it comes from Google or from you. If you demand perfection, you will receive nothing. Why is that so hard for people to understand? The world simply cannot work the way you say it should.

If it is shown to millions, everyone who is interested in you, they are factually not fact checking and you can do nothing against it.

It can destroy you. You are analyzing this on the assumption that people are rational and have capacity to do the check. They have neither.

Post reply on HN