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

151–160 of 587 posts

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

#151

Post by daemin »

Frieren wrote: post #69
missedthecue wrote: post #64

If companies can be held liable (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies) for the output of non-deterministic software, isn't this just a soft ban on the deployment of non-deterministic software?

> (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies) If you sell food, in a food stall, labeled as food and you add a disclaimer that it is toxic and will make you sick. You are still selling toxic food and you are liable for it. Google is pretending to give answers to your questions. They offer you a service about answering questions. And then they add a disclaimer "we do not answer questions just write…

To add to this, a Google search now is answering your question in an incorrect way rather than merely bringing you to a site with incorrect information on it.

They are also no longer covered by safe harbour provisions because it is them answering it, not some content they refer you to.

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

#152

Post by HWR_14 »

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.

There are a lot of people who consider no ai to be a positive state. So "you will receive nothing" may not be perceived as the threat you think it is.

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

#153

Post by pdpi »

michaellee8 wrote: post #142
pdpi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I post “heathrow83829 is a convicted poopoo head” (replace with your favourite crime) as if it were a factual claim, you’d be well within your rights to sue me for defamation even if people should apply some critical thinking skills and say “wait a minute, how would pdpi know that? Are you sure he isn’t just talking out of his arse?” Now, search engines are usually afforded some amount of protection against defama…

I think Google added that AI-generated responses maybe incorrect? When you are paying such a low amount of cost, like probably for free, I don't think you can expect a same level of quality as a human written or reviewed of answer. It is like same random user spin up their Lovable and vibe-coded a piece of slop and hold Lovable responsible for not giving them production quality code. It is simple, you get what you pa…

This case isn’t about Google’s users getting low-quality search results. As you say, you get what you pay for. The actual issue is that, in some searches, the AI summaries would claim the plaintiffs were guilty of scams and all-around shady business practices.

Put differently: it’s not newspaper readers complaining the paper is inaccurate, it’s the people mentioned in the articles.

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

#154

Post by HWR_14 »

foolfoolz wrote: post #20
cortesoft wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is exactly the point of the ruling, though... they are saying that AI summaries are NOT the same as search. If Google was just returning search results, and then users clicked on a website and read the content there, Google is not responsible for the content. If instead Google gives you an answer right there on google.com, without going to another site, they ARE responsible for it. That makes sense to me?

why? tons of websites push misinformation intentionally. is there a truth requirement anywhere? i don’t get why this is a thing at all

And those tons of websites are liable for their misinformation. It's probably not worth suing some random blog because the author probably doesn't have money or lives in Russia. But Google has lots of money and a legal presence in almost every jurisdiction.

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

#155

Post by CamperBob2 »

oaiey wrote: post #150
CamperBob2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it is shown to millions, everyone who is interested in you, they are factually not fact checking and you can do nothing against it. It can destroy you. You are analyzing this on the assumption that people are rational and have capacity to do the check. They have neither.

(Shrug) That sounds like their problem, if they reflexively believe everything Google's AI tells them. No one I respect, care for, or work with would believe such a thing without additional justification.

Anyone who does accept Google's AI output blindly will soon find that their mistaken opinion of CamperBob2 is the least of their problems. There is a reason Google goes (well) out of their way to warn people that the results may be wrong. That should be sufficient warning for reasonable people of good faith.

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

#156

Post by sham1 »

gblargg wrote: post #145
chias wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a win win to me

To remove the choice from responsible people who can understand that LLM answers are not to be trusted with anything important?

If our standard for laws would be that "well no reasonable person would do this/believe this" then nothing would be illegal, there'd be no need to label any product as potentiality harmful, etc.

Do you really want to go there? That everything in the world would have a literal "caveat emptor" attached to it?

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

#157

Post by CamperBob2 »

HWR_14 wrote: post #152
CamperBob2 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a lot of people who consider no ai to be a positive state. So "you will receive nothing" may not be perceived as the threat you think it is.

Those aren't people whose opinions I'd be interested in, so they're free to think anything they like about me.

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

#158

Post by polotics »

gblargg wrote: post #145
chias wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a win win to me

To remove the choice from responsible people who can understand that LLM answers are not to be trusted with anything important?

Do you mean the responsible people who will ensure their algorithms can be trusted with the important task of acting in the best interest of said people? Try and get a defamatory statement about google from the AI search box.

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

#159

Post by csomar »

keithnz wrote: post #140

The irony of an article that makes a false claim about what Google was found liable for.... and that very few are fact checking it :) The law they broke was a law protecting personal and business reputation against false statements of fact. Essentially no one can say I might be wrong, check yourself, but X is Y if that claim is essentially defamatory. This is pretty good, I hope googles approach is to make sure they…

How much does Germany follow case law? If this could set a precedent, it's worth noting that anyone can generate these AI overview responses and they're wrong like 9 times out of 10 only.
Post reply on HN