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

481–490 of 587 posts

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

#481

Post by danaris »

SllX wrote: post #197
clort wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you re-read the article, you might see that it mentions that the citations do not necessarily cover the AI summary. The linked pages do not make the claims that the AI summary makes. That is the context of the ruling. Google made up the claims, and provided false citations. They are not, in fact, providing a summary, but a whole new narrative. Therefore they own it.

I read the article and I’m aware of the failure modes of Google’s AI summary. They’re actually one of the worst in the space on this shit which is why I don’t use Gemini and it’s fine that they get slapped for this, but what I was responding to initially was this: > errors can be so subtle that it is not possible to recognize them unless you spend an hour researching every fact presented. at that point, what's the be…

> Being able to recognize those contradictions is an essential skill

My eyes are brown.

I dislike coffee.

My phone is on the desk next to me right now.

One of these is false, and the other two are true. Can you recognise which is which? Or do you not have this "essential skill"?

When you're being given information about a topic you don't already know about, there's no skill to be able to recognise which pieces of that information are correct and which aren't. Either you know the information already, or you don't.

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

#482

Post by lazide »

xg15 wrote: post #414
biosboiii wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

For any given system, you’ll have those that try to play it straight - and those that will only ever try to play it crooked.

Make one big enough, and you’ll even have people trying to play it crooked by pretending to play it straight.

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

#484

Post by jmcqk6 »

hparadiz wrote: post #471
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> slows down innovation A return to the classical understanding of the person, society, and the common good is indispensable.

In reality Europe will be left behind as usual.

Lots of people in the US getting left behind too.

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

#485

Post by danaris »

f33d5173 wrote: post #437
account42 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we're all just temporarily confused FAANGs.

Banning faangs from doing something also bans small companies from doing it, and regardless prevents the user from receiving it as a service. You shouldn't let anger at large companies excuse stupid regulations.

There's no reason this has to be the case.

It's entirely possible for legislatures to attach clauses to restrictions that make them only apply to businesses above 50 employees, or above $1M ARR, or whatever.

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

#486

Post by danaris »

Robotbeat wrote: post #467
themafia wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This isn't about what the LLM knows. No one's trying to hold a computer liable.

This is about what Google knows.

And Google knows perfectly well that LLMs hallucinate all the time. They will provide incorrect information, confidently and often.

Which is why this whole article is explicitly about holding Google accountable.

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

#487

Post by benj111 »

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 heard that they don't clean the dishes enough

Is that defamation? That isn't a statement of fact, that's just relaying what you heard.

If I relay what the Daily Mail says, am I also guilty of defamation, or can I rely on what others say?

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

#488

Post by SoftTalker »

benj111 wrote: post #487
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.

>I heard that they don't clean the dishes enough Is that defamation? That isn't a statement of fact, that's just relaying what you heard. If I relay what the Daily Mail says, am I also guilty of defamation, or can I rely on what others say?

If you quote the Daily Mail, with a citation, then probably not. If you are repeating a vaguely-source rumor that "you heard" then that's heresay and could be defamation.

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

#489

Post by WarmWash »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #463
WarmWash wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

AI overviews automatically produces links to it's sources for each statement, so it's trivial to check.

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

#490

Post by nonethewiser »

rtkwe wrote: post #476
nonethewiser wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont really understand your reasoning at all, nor what law it would break. What law do you think it would break? It doesnt even seem to be what the article is saying. This looks like a section 230 sort of issue. Section 230 is a US law that protects platforms like facebook, google etc. being treated as publishers because the information, presumably, is just being passed through. But Germany is saying the AI results…

I don't see a world where AI results aren't reasonably considered the output of the company. They're minced and sausagified regurgitations but they're not the original sources either.

Yeah, but my point is: what does that have to do with monopolies changing their services?

And to continue your thought, what does that imply about copyright of training data? If Google is authoring the output it seems harder to argue they are ripping someone else off.

It really seems like a tightrope to say google is publishing their own opinion but their opinion is also just someone else's work.

Post reply on HN