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

441–450 of 587 posts

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

#441

Post by Hfuffzehn »

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 argument starts with

search engine -> search terms -> search command

Google accepted the argument up to that point. Then they argued that they are not responsible for the search result. The court argued that what they did was not a search (or not protected the way a search is).

The argument whether Gemini, ChatGPT or Claude are search engines and whether a prompt is search terms is a different argument. Certainly an interesting one, but not what that court looked at.

It's not just about the output, the input matters also.

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

#442

Post by Ravus »

dcrazy wrote: post #436
jorvi wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, that is not defamation. Both defamation and libel require it to be a false statement. If you did find a cockroach or your plate was dirty, you can freely say so without needing to provide extensive proof.

Are you speaking about the law in Germany? Truth is not an absolute defense to libel in all countries.

I can vouch for what you're saying - Italy is a jurisdiction in which truth is not a defense, for instance.

Truthful statement seem to be a defense for Germany, though. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

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

#443

Post by ryukoposting »

Swizec wrote: post #18

Good. The true mark of AGI is when a company accepts liability and doesn’t bury “for entertainment purposes only” deep in their TOS. Same as it works with employees. Same for self-driving. Your car is not self-driving until it accepts liability and you count as just a passenger. But watch as Germany soon loses AI Google results.

Well then you're going to be waiting a long, long time for AGI, friend. None of these companies have any incentive to ever remove that line, even if their chatbots are perfectly accurate over a large sample size. It's pure CYA. Unless it can be proven that the chatbot will always be perfectly accurate (which is not possible), the "entertainment purposes only" line will remain.

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

#444

Post by ElProlactin »

TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #390
ElProlactin wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like a 1950's traditional conservative when I suggest that... I wouldn't argue that America's moral standards haven't declined (significantly) but I also think it's a romanization to suggest that 1950s America was the pinnacle of morality. Lying, misleading, and exploiting people for financial gain has been a part of the fabric of American society since the country was founded. If we're being honest, humans…

I never implied the 1950's was the pinnacle of morality. I was referencing the tropes that "traditional" "conservative" politicians since Reagan have consistently virtue signaled, while they aggressively worked to achieve the exact opposite. There is evidence of that being a common 50's perspective though. It was when most conservatives and liberals alike had been burned by the greed of the guilded age, stock market…

> Hard work actually resulted in financial security, and greater opportunity for your children.

The economy of the 1950s was due to a variety of factors, including lack of international competition (European and Japanese industrial bases were devastated in the war), pent up consumer savings from war time, demographics (the baby boom), etc. Unionization was certainly a part of the mix but it seems you're cherry-picking to support your romanticized view.

And let's not forget: the 1950s were a good economic time if you were a white man. They weren't nearly so great if you were black or a woman.

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

#445

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

9rx wrote: post #432
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Google search was simply repeating quotes from other websites - those other websites would be responsible for their content. Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM, they are responsible for whatever results that produces.

> Now that Google is manufacturing answers There isn't someone at a keyboard typing content. It's still just search, repeating quotes from other websites. The difference is that the algorithms have turned lossy, so the quotes are not always preserved in their original form.

Obviously, I understand that and maybe you shouldn't have cut short the quote from my comment as that demonstrates exactly and precisely what is going on.

i.e.

> Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM

To be honest, I find it somewhat rude that you select a portion of what I wrote and then criticise it.

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

#446

Post by pacman1337 »

jacknews wrote: post #110

We should be teaching people to be cynical of AI answers. Even if the answers are correct, they could still be biased, incomplete, misleading, and all the other media-literacy things people should be looking out for. This ruling seems to go the opposite direction; 'I am legally obliged to give correct answers, so I am always right, trust the AI'.

First comment that makes sense. Of course AI needs to be verified. Of course it gives bs answers. The answer is to educate the public not try to daddy then. I hope AI is completely banned from Germany for their protection since apparently their government doesn't believe its people know how to question AI.

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

#448

Post by [deleted] »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #445
9rx wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now that Google is manufacturing answers There isn't someone at a keyboard typing content. It's still just search, repeating quotes from other websites. The difference is that the algorithms have turned lossy, so the quotes are not always preserved in their original form.

Obviously, I understand that and maybe you shouldn't have cut short the quote from my comment as that demonstrates exactly and precisely what is going on. i.e. > Now that Google is manufacturing answers using their own LLM To be honest, I find it somewhat rude that you select a portion of what I wrote and then criticise it.

[deleted]

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

#449

Post by lgrebe »

pacman1337 wrote: post #447

Companies should just stop providing AI to police states like Germany. Apparently their citizens believe anything they read.

So if i were to write a false statement about you that would result in legal consequences for you, im not liable?

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

#450

Post by lithos »

jayGlow wrote: post #94
lithos wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One that doesn't maim/injure/kill you is a pretty good standard. And before you call bs, look at all the foraging and chemistry books that are for sale on Amazon that are AI.

why are those ai chemistry books any different than the anarchist cookbook which can also be bought on Amazon? actually now that I think about it a faulty chemistry book might be less dangerous than a book that teachers readers how to make explosives.

There's a difference between something that properly advertised itself as dangerous, and something that advertises itself as a professional authority.
Post reply on HN