I guess the same rules also applied to OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon?
German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
501–510 of 587 posts
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
> slows down innovation A return to the classical understanding of the person, society, and the common good is indispensable.
I don't even know that I would call it slowing down so much as constraining/focusing innovation. There's three basic paths for a company hit by this ruling to comply: 1. Stop showing users generated content. 2. Figure out how to generate the content with more quotes and attribution to source websites, to regain the protection offered to search engines. 3. Figure out the hallucination problem, so that every statement…
There was already a ton of collective incentive for #3, I don't think the companies are choosing to "coast on good-enough."
Rather, they are stuck unable to do that much better, unwilling to admit (especially in a way that might spook shareholders) that it's a hallucination-machine all the way down. They're playing for time and market-share while hoping some unspecified and inherently-unpredictable new discovery arrives which will be compatible with their existing infrastructure and investments.
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
so it's trivial to check.
It's trivial to use a search engine instead of AI. But people still use AI to save the time needed to read and check.
But in any case, none of this absolves slander. The legal burden of proof is still on the source --- which is AI.
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#504Earlier 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
I gave a one star review to some cheap restaurant in Potsdam 10 years ago. I literally just said you get what you pay for. Last year I got a similar email from Google saying the review was removed for defamation.
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#505Earlier 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.
So if the actual page is defamatory then Google quoting it verbatim is protected. But if Google accurately summarizes the defamatory page, then the summary is defamatory?
Did you read the article?
The whole point is that these particular defamatory claims weren't made by some third-party, but hallucinated entirely by Google's own AI.
There is no "accurate summary". Just a pack of lies fabricated in-house at Google.
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what this article says. If you think the article mispresents the ruling, then you should point it out. You say you like the ruling then proceed to listing things that you like, but are not related to the ruling.
> If you think the article mispresents the ruling, then you should pint it out. It seems that's exactly what they did.
Where? Honestly can't find it. Or you're making a joke about my typo?
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#507Earlier 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.
"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.
[dead]
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#508People will complain, but eventually Europe will still be in advance regarding this kind of law. It's annoying and sometimes slows down innovation but US companies are just doing whatever makes money without restrictions...
This is the kind of legislation that only exists to help the rich and powerful and harm those below them, it's certainly not an example of where EU is doing better than the US.
Or what, do you think it's a genuinely good thing that hosting negative reviews is essentially illegal in Germany?
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really that ignorant of the past? There are so many cases of people suffering from wrong accusations. They get death threats. People harass them on the street. Throw stones into their windows. Beat up their kids. Trash their car. Deny them jobs, or leases, kick them out of their apartment. You have no idea what it can mean to end up in such a situation.
The source of the accusation is arguably more impactful than the accusation itself. No one with a straight face would compare an AI overview saying someone is an asshole to the New York Times running a story saying someone is an asshole.
If the New York Times wrote someone was allegedly an asshole, and Google Search condenses to presenting that as a fact, I’d bet you my left kidney that the general public would be quick to take that at face value.
Re: German ruling declares Google liable for false answers in AI Overviews
#510I guess the same rules also applied to OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, Meta, and Amazon?
Presumably, yes. Looking forward to the next year of court outcomes!