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

381–390 of 587 posts

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

#381

Post by HPsquared »

joe_mamba wrote: post #375
Saline9515 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, Google spends engineering/legal hours to make country-specific changes relative to problems that do not exist.

Save your breath. CarlitosHighway's posts on this thread shows he's just blindly running defense for Germany's status quo on defamation laws low threshold for abuse on every argument someone brings, not being open to arguing in good faith, weightings in on the pros and cons of this, so it doesn't matter what counterexamples you keep bringing to him, it won't change his mind, his replies will be more "anecdotal" snark…

Maybe there is a German law against spamming.

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

#382

Post by luke5441 »

Saline9515 wrote: post #343
CarlitosHighway wrote: post #333

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.

Yes, Google just removes them as a first step because this is the least amount of work for them. Theoretically there is an Google appeals process. After that it needs to go to court.

My guess is that often reviews are generalizing (easy mistake to make). E.g. they say "service is slow", when they should say: "When I was there on Thursday at noon service was slow for my table".

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

#383

Post by smcin »

Terr_ wrote: post #272
brainwad wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with monopolies. Google was protected from defamation law with search because the page title and snippets were direct quotes from the linked result page. Whereas with AI overviews, the copy is written by a Google-controlled LLM.

I recall "Large Libel Models" was one of the sobriquets going around. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4546063

Brilliant

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

#384

Post by addandsubtract »

CarlitosHighway wrote: post #345
camillomiller wrote: post #340

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]

Bro is in this thread defending Google like he owns stocks. Oh wait...

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

#385

Post by jnovek »

emsign wrote: post #323
3ot wrote: 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.

Please don't use fabricated anecdotes in replacement for your own anecdotes. That doesn't make your argument more trustworthy but doesthe opposite.

If we’re talking about credibility, unfounded accusations of lying tend to harm the credibility of the accuser more than the accused.

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

#386

Post by abustamam »

luke5441 wrote: post #382
Saline9515 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, Google just removes them as a first step because this is the least amount of work for them. Theoretically there is an Google appeals process. After that it needs to go to court. My guess is that often reviews are generalizing (easy mistake to make). E.g. they say "service is slow", when they should say: "When I was there on Thursday at noon service was slow for my table".

When reading a review, it should always be assumed that it is based off of one "visit". A negative review will probably never have more than a few visits and if they do they'd normally say "I used to come here a lot but after new ownership service sucks!"

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

#387

Post by orwin »

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 instead of scammers, it was 'registered sex offender'. Each time someone search your name and surname in Google, it show a picture of you next to the words 'registered sex offender'. Do you think your neighbours and the parents of your child's friends will do their due diligence or will they prefer not take any risks?

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

#388

Post by oytis »

CarlitosHighway wrote: post #333
Saline9515 wrote: post #285

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.

I think it was ruled that 1 star review without any words at all can be considered a defamation

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

#389

Post by jnovek »

ozgrakkurt wrote: post #218
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…

> 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 lawsuits. This doesn’t sound convincing. What AI and what company? LLMs don’t seem like they will ever be reliable like that. Self driving like waymo might be?

LLMs will absolutely be like that. The speed this technology is moving at makes me certain, especially over a period of 10-20 years; 20 years ago I was bugging friends for a GMail invite and AI was a joke left to academics.

I think it will even be solved soon, like, within the next 18 to 36 months. Hallucinations are the biggest problem consumers have with LLMs and a solution to that would be instantly worth billions of dollars. I’m sure every company in this space is desperately trying to figure it out before everyone else.

A non-deterministic system will always make mistakes, but we’ll hit a target where LLMs make fewer mistakes than humans and that will be good enough for almost all applications.

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

#390

Post by TalkingCodeMonk »

ElProlactin wrote: post #121
TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a false dichotomy. The solution to failed laws and regulations is not crime and corruption. The solution is to hold the policial and business leadership accountable; to fix the laws and regulations. The entire American tech industry has exported Americas predatory, parasitic, and unethical consumer laws (the majority of which are ghost written by the wealthy and corporate legal teams). When I studied law in s…

> I feel like a 1950's traditional conservative when I suggest that... I wouldn't argue that America's moral standards haven't declined (significantly) but I also think it's a romanization to suggest that 1950s America was the pinnacle of morality. Lying, misleading, and exploiting people for financial gain has been a part of the fabric of American society since the country was founded. If we're being honest, humans…

I never implied the 1950's was the pinnacle of morality. I was referencing the tropes that "traditional" "conservative" politicians since Reagan have consistently virtue signaled, while they aggressively worked to achieve the exact opposite.

There is evidence of that being a common 50's perspective though. It was when most conservatives and liberals alike had been burned by the greed of the guilded age, stock market collapse, great depression, and world war. The majority of the working class in the developed world were experiencing significant gains in QoL/SoL thanks to labour movements and aggressive unionization, did not view CEO's as admirable heroes, or fellow consumers and workers with malice and contempt. Hard work actually resulted in financial security, and greater opportunity for your children.

Post reply on HN