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

461–470 of 587 posts

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

#461

Post by sgc »

danaris wrote: post #411
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The ai legal situation is going to go through growing pains. I am abstracting from the specific laws of any one country, just thinking about the general context:

If ai output is not copyrightable, it should not be considered personal output. So nobody should be responsible for it. Or if it is considered personal output, it should be copyrightable. Or perhaps the ai companies will be liable for all output, and they will therefore all cease to exist in any useful form? This seems like another alternative, where the output legal value is not central, but there will be a thousand different fights about how it is presented to others.

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

#462

Post by wat10000 »

Frieren wrote: post #350
TZubiri wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This is even worse, since the defamation in question is against a third party. This would be more like: by reading this comment, you transfer all of Bob's property to me.

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

#463

Post by jqpabc123 »

WarmWash wrote: post #453
jqpabc123 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

AI overviews cites it's sources though...

Yes, AI would never list irrelevant sources and fabricate links.

https://blog.platinumids.com/blog/ai-hallucination-crisis-co...

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

#464

Post by wat10000 »

observationist wrote: post #455

This silly game where the EU invents its own rules and tries to impose them globally must stop. Their business is not needed, and the collateral damage with regards to censorship, manipulation, and erosion of fundamental liberties far outpaces any value their continued participation in e-commerce might bring. This sort of paternalistic and insidious bureaucratic encroachment into every aspect of life is completely an…

How is this an example of trying to impose rules globally? Google is operating in Germany. Their German operations have to follow German laws. That's how every country operates.

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

#465

Post by danaris »

sgc wrote: post #461
danaris wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The ai legal situation is going to go through growing pains. I am abstracting from the specific laws of any one country, just thinking about the general context: If ai output is not copyrightable, it should not be considered personal output. So nobody should be responsible for it. Or if it is considered personal output, it should be copyrightable. Or perhaps the ai companies will be liable for all output, and they wi…

That's trying to apply two completely separate legal frameworks, with different purposes, and force them to come to the same conclusion about one aspect of each of them. It's not that simple.

It's perfectly legally consistent to say that AI-generated content has no copyright (because it's the product of a computer, not a human), and also that the human or organization operating an AI is legally responsible for anything in its output that is legally actionable.

Someone needs to hold legal responsibility for any piece of content out there. You can't just wrap your decisions in AI and get to be free of all liability for it.

But copyright isn't like that. There's nothing lost to society by saying that content is not copyrightable, and particularly given how the major LLMs were trained, there's a lot lost to society by saying that they can take all of that from everyone without consent, and then everything it produces has copyright and can be used for, say, Google's profit in perpetuity.

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

#466

Post by Robotbeat »

novemp wrote: post #115
Robotbeat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, obviously.

What if they just make a mistake, unintentionally?

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

#467

Post by Robotbeat »

themafia wrote: post #127
Robotbeat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If they do so knowingly, and harm is caused, then yes. Are you suggesting we should give them a pass from years of acquired jurisprudence simply because they hold a particular title? And what institution gives out the licenses for journalists and scientists? Is it revokable?

Do LLMs knowingly make mistakes?

Do we sue scientists for unintentional procedural errors?

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

#468

Post by Robotbeat »

atoav wrote: post #199
Robotbeat wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't?

It’s in the nature of empirical reality that scientific measurements can be wrong.

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

#469

Post by Robotbeat »

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?

…even unintentionally.

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

#470

Post by jbxntuehineoh »

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.

So if I went around telling all your friends and acquaintances that you're a pedophile rapist, you'd have no problem with that whatsoever?
Post reply on HN