Live data from Hacker News

German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews

the-decoder.com

341–350 of 587 posts

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

#341
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does Germany follow case law? If this could set a precedent, it's worth noting that anyone can generate these AI overview responses and they're wrong like 9 times out of 10 only.

In common with most of Europe, German legal system is not based on case law. It's more firmly rooted in formal laws and regulations and judges are not required to follow precedent.

Does formal law systems lead to a fraction of the lawyer work hours and ambiguity in spirit of the law? Been noticing legal LLM tools which have to crunch entire libraries.

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

#342
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.

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…

[dead]

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that defamation law has a very low threshold in Germany, to the point that businesses routinely sue Google Maps users for less-than-5-stars reviews. Google had to change their display of reviews because of this. Three stars review is taken down for "libel": https://support.google.com/maps/thread/367778263/google-maps... HNer gets a legal threat after saying that he didn't like a doctor: https://new…

You cannot get sued for a review just because it's lower than 5 stars. But of course if you write something like "I found a dead cockroach in my pizza", or "I hard that they don't clean the dishes enough" in a review without proof, that's defamation. And it doesn't matter if you give 1 or 5 stars with the review.

Multiple people report that comments such as "Service was slow", or three star rating without comment were removed.

If Google started to show how many reviews were removed, it was because the lawfare started to seriously affect the ratings.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot get sued for a review just because it's lower than 5 stars. But of course if you write something like "I found a dead cockroach in my pizza", or "I hard that they don't clean the dishes enough" in a review without proof, that's defamation. And it doesn't matter if you give 1 or 5 stars with the review.

Multiple people report that comments such as "Service was slow", or three star rating without comment were removed. If Google started to show how many reviews were removed, it was because the lawfare started to seriously affect the ratings.

Anecdotal

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot get sued for a review just because it's lower than 5 stars. But of course if you write something like "I found a dead cockroach in my pizza", or "I hard that they don't clean the dishes enough" in a review without proof, that's defamation. And it doesn't matter if you give 1 or 5 stars with the review.

I wrote a one star review and posted pictures of a badly burnt pizza served at a restaurant in Berlin. Google sent me an email telling me they removed that because the restaurant filed a defamation claim

[flagged]

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

#346
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.

I've also observed that the AI summary on the google search page is incredibly stupid compared to the results in the actual Gemini. The Google search AI is like the dumbest lightest model simply rewording the search results. It will take a random reddit comment, strip it from it's context and present it as absolute fact.

> compared to the results in the actual Gemini.

Even those results have a lot to be desired, it is just buried deeper in the insanely verbose research report and impressive looking amount of sources you see move past.

I recently have had a close look at the various "deep research" options the big three (Anthropic, OpenAI and Google) offer. None of them are exactly transparent about how they perform searching other than the "research plan" the present upfront the and shitload of sources they show you (which, to be frank, seems to be clever UX/marketing to make it look extra legitimate and impressive). Which is already a worrying sign to me, as you can't audit the process itself properly. But even with the lack of information available on the front-end I can still see enough that worries me. A few examples:

- "Sources" are taken at face value almost no critical look at the validity of the source, the context it is placed in, etc.

- A lot of sources I know are legitimate are rarely included while a lot of listicles, low effort "reviews", etc do make the cut.

- In multiple instances when looking closer at the research plan and the "hints" they show during searching it becomes painfully clear that often enough they start with an answer in mind based on training data and try to validate that rather than actually researching the data itself.

- Subtly different prompts that by all means should still produce the same factual outcome actually provide wildly different results. This one probably relates to the other points.

In addition to all of this, I also am 100% convinced that AI powered search is incredibly expensive[1], more so than traditional search. In my mind this increased cost eventually will need to be paid by someone, which likely is going to be the user. Since the process is non-transparant I am not confident that the results will not end up being polluted by sponsored deals, etc. There is simply no way in my mind that this is going to end up well for us users.

[1] A while ago I have experimented with creating my own deep research flow with the idea that I might be able to do something with local models. To limit costs I used a SearXNG instance for searching, setup playwright for browsing sources. Using an agentic flow with agents making all the various calls and dispatching other agents ended up eating A LOT of tokens. Even when I did switch to a non agentic flow where each step is orchestrated by code calling on LLMs with simple prompts to validate results still ate a metric ton of tokens for the simplest search query. Mind you, this was not even doing actual deep research but only a few simple search queries. Ironically, google models also did seem to have more trouble coming up with good search queries compared to other models.

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

#347
post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I agree about the LLM part. But can confirm from personal experience that businesses threaten to sue based on Google Maps reviews.

Let them sue then. Unless you lie in your review ("There was a used condom in my burger, 1 star"), nothing will happen.

"I trust the law and the justice system" is a great way to get a hands-on schooling on why people spend a lot of money on lawyers.

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

#348
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly the entire American tech industry has been super heavily selected for people who undervalue the legal language with crazy implications buried everywhere. Otherwise most of it would not even exist. Everyone would have continued paying out the nose to the IBM’s of the world year after year (who had unusual willingness to sign short ambiguously worded custom contracts to their own disadvantage, if paid vast amoun…

> Nearly the entire American tech industry has been super heavily selected for people who undervalue the legal language with crazy implications buried everywhere. A lot of people in IT seem to think law and contracts are in a sense mathematical. They aren't; they're more like a high school book report - to be interpreted, as objectively as possible, but definitely also establishing the intent behind the letters. Part…

> "Surprising" clauses are invalid in most legal systems…

Yes, except… very notably… the USA… (especially certain parts such as Delaware). Which has a judiciary that entertain such clauses much more often than pretty much any other country I’ve heard of.

A clause like: “you agree to deliver your first born son on demand” buried in page 15 would indeed be laughed out of the courtroom.

But less severe clauses buried in page 15 might not be immediately laughed out. Causing a lot of expense and heartache before it gets dismissed.

Just think about it, if it were really just a total joke… why would large firms (FAANG, etc.) with serious legal departments want to look like clowns producing gibberish, year after year?

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a one star review and posted pictures of a badly burnt pizza served at a restaurant in Berlin. Google sent me an email telling me they removed that because the restaurant filed a defamation claim

[flagged]

It doesn't matter if some people think good pizza should be burnt to some degree. There is no such thing as objectively good pizza, so one-star review "The pizza was burnt, I didn't like it." is entirely valid thing to say.

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

#350
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…

>How could anything else make any sense? Well, they disclaimed and the user acknowledged Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QaEB5eXSU Minute 3:00

Disclaimer: By reading this comment you accept to transfer all your properties to me, effective immediately.

Anyone can write a disclaimer, that does not make it enforceable.

Post reply on HN