11–20 of 28 posts
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There isn't one.
"AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses."
> First, Riehl did not and could not reasonably read ChatGPT’s output as defamatory. By its very nature, AI-generated content is probabilistic and not always factual, and there is near universal consensus that responsible use of AI includes fact-checking prompted outputs before using or sharing them. OpenAI clearly and consistently conveys these limitations to its users. Immediately below the text box where users enter prompts, OpenAI warns: “ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts.” Before using ChatGPT, users agree that ChatGPT is a tool to generate “draft language,” and that they must verify, revise, and “take ultimate responsibility for the content being published.” And upon logging into ChatGPT, users are again warned “the system may occasionally generate misleading or incorrect information and produce offensive content. It is not intended to give advice.”
Separately, it's broadly correct that there is no Section 230 argument to be made. "Everyone" knows that Section 230 doesn't apply to this. I can't find anyone making any legal arguments that it would.
0: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.gand.31...
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
This is exactly why Google's public comment on this case from the TFA is:
> "AI Overviews frequently improve to show the most helpful information, and we invest significantly in the quality of responses. When issues arise – like if our features misinterpret web content or miss some context – we use those examples to improve our systems and may take action under our policies."
Google's statement is carefully crafted to make the case that they "act with reasonable care" for legal effect, rather than to win any points in the court of public opinion. Courts have yet to determine what passes the reasonable-care test for negligence wrt AI output. Google feels they need to make sure that regardless of anything else that happens in this case, that the decision does not find their publishing was negligent.
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
If Anthropic can implement a regular expression to monitor for user frustration, Google have certainty got the chops to have some sort of heuristic to check for strongly negative statements.
Doesn’t work with APIs, but then the person/entity integrating the API should have that responsibility.
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
Even if you accept that (I don't, and neither should the courts), Google controls the next hundred processing/routing/rendering/middleware steps and is fully in control of the content that makes it to the user.
Sure they should, and they should raise the penalties accordingly to punish a company that puts out uncontrolled tech.
> is fully in control of the content that makes it to the user.
They do not control their chatbots parrot's squawking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses."
FWIW, in Walters v OpenAI, a judge rejected that argument made in OpenAI's motion to dismiss [0]. The case ended up being ruled on different merits though (namely, that the user knew the statements were a hallucination so there was no defamation). > First, Riehl did not and could not reasonably read ChatGPT’s output as defamatory. By its very nature, AI-generated content is probabilistic and not always factual, and t…
> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls. Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
OP says Google has the first. You are saying Google doesn't have the second. Both of you are right in that sense. You are wrong in the sense that the second doesn't matter much here.
If I remove my hands from the wheel of my car, while it would be technically true that I was not "driving" it from that point, if I run over some pedestrian they will counter, rightfully, that the vehicle was under my control the whole time.