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

411–420 of 587 posts

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

#411

Post by danaris »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #330
Hfuffzehn wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the monopoly is not relevant for the court. It is relevant for Google though, because they want to transfer it to another product. And the court is saying that whatever that new product is, Google is not allowed to mislead the public by pretending it is search.

I'm not sure. Is it really just the misleading part that the court takes issue with, i.e portraying Gemini output as a search result? In my view, the ruling could mean that Gemini's output is legally seen as first-person speech by Google regardless of where it is published.

Based on the article, the problem isn't that Google is attempting to present the AI Overview as "search" to the users. Google is attempting to claim to the court that AI Overviews are just like search, and the court isn't buying it.

The problem here is that

1) the AI Overview is giving incorrect information, and

2) it is Google's own words

...which makes Google liable for anything false there.

They weren't liable for false statements in search results, because that was 100% other people's content, being linked to, with a small blurb taken directly from their words. With the AI Overviews, regardless of whether it's getting its information from other people's content, it's remixing it based on Gemini's algorithms and synthesising statements that are frequently wrong.

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

#412

Post by [deleted] »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #409
boringg wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean was google search responsible for surfacing correct answers? I am not a defend of AI but this seems like a weird piece of legislation.

No, Google search was simply repeating quotes from other websites - those other websites would be responsible for their content. Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM, they are responsible for whatever results that produces.

[deleted]

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

#413

Post by jqpabc123 »

SilverElfin wrote: post #85
Swizec wrote: 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.

Why is it good? Everyone with common sense knows AI can be wrong. And it’s not buried in their TOS. It’s in the chat box. But even if it wasn’t, it’s ridiculous to create liability for AI chatbots.

it’s ridiculous to create liability for AI chatbots.

Liability isn't being *created* here, it has existed legally for a very long time.

False information can cause real harm --- and the legal burden of proof is on the source.

Search engines were provided legal exemption on the basis that they were simply quoting/referencing 3rd party sources who where legally liable for the content.

LLM chatbots legally exceed these bounds by fabricating info/content on their own ---data that does not exist elsewhere. This is a liability issue waiting to happen as there is no other responsible party/source to blame.

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

#414

Post by xg15 »

biosboiii wrote: post #394
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.

There are agencies in Germany where you can buy review removals in a web shop for like 50 euros per review. You just have to link the review and they will send Google a legal document to delete it.

That sounds like a great incentive for such an agency to create the reviews in the first place...

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

#415

Post by thfuran »

wasmitnetzen wrote: post #391
drstewart wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, it's like saying Wikipedia shouldn't be liable and immediately shut down for any wrong information shown on it.

Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down, but they have to remove the libel. The problem for LLMs is that they do not learn, and can't be prevented to produce that libel ever again. If Google finds a way to make that happen, no court would stop them from offering an LLM.

The court isn’t stopping them from offering an LLM, it’s saying that serving the output of its LLM is, in this sense, equivalent to serving the output of a human writer they hired. That is, it is Google’s speech and they are directly liable for it, unlike when they’re just serving search results that are somebody else’s speech.

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

#416

Post by g8oz »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #301
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…

> HNer gets a legal threat after saying that he didn't like a doctor: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44734895 This post is written by an LLM, and possibly a complete fabrication.

A lot of people use LLMs to clean up their sloppy text. Not realizing how fake it makes them sound. non-native speakers lacking confidence in their English are a type of llm abuser. It doesn't necessarily make the content fake.

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

#417

Post by DonHopkins »

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.

"Lawfare" is a propogandistic term coined and used hypocritically by people who get away with doing illegal things themselves, and have a long track record of getting revenge for being legally indicted and prosecuted, by gleefully going after innocent people on their enemies list with the very legal system they control themselves. And you know exactly who I mean, who uses that term all the time.

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

#418

Post by boringg »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #409
boringg wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean was google search responsible for surfacing correct answers? I am not a defend of AI but this seems like a weird piece of legislation.

No, Google search was simply repeating quotes from other websites - those other websites would be responsible for their content. Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM, they are responsible for whatever results that produces.

Were the websites actually held responsible though?

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

#419

Post by buellerbueller »

andrewmutz wrote: post #101
Swizec wrote: 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…

Perfectly acceptable to me.

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

#420

Post by buellerbueller »

autoexec wrote: post #188
bergen wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we deploy a technology no one should trust to the general public, for what exact reason?

So a very small number of people can get very rich off of the suffering of a massive number of other people I guess

Venture Capital 101! Welcome to Y Combinator :)
Post reply on HN