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

491–500 of 587 posts

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

#491

Post by jijijijij »

h1fra wrote: post #425

People 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...

Quite frankly, in this very instance, Europe's slow tech adaptation and comparatively little investments are a blessing.

At this point, there is nothing to gain but volatility. Let the US figure out the economic and social disruption, and then adopt whatever sticks. There is no rush. The useful parts got little moat. It's not like there is a magnitude of difference to justify the expenses and risks of frontier operations, in comparison to open models, or smaller players. Chances are, all of this AI business will settle on local models for most use cases. The US may get their first trillionaire, but let's be real, that's not because of innovation but corruption, exploitation and raging wealth inequality. If the AI economy is not panning out as "projected", there is no recovery. That money got converted to heat and single-use hardware trash. Not worth risking pensions and the social fabric over "the tech edge".

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

#493

Post by dgellow »

HPsquared wrote: post #381
joe_mamba wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Save your breath. CarlitosHighway's posts on this thread shows he's just blindly running defense for Germany's status quo on defamation laws low threshold for abuse on every argument someone brings, not being open to arguing in good faith, weightings in on the pros and cons of this, so it doesn't matter what counterexamples you keep bringing to him, it won't change his mind, his replies will be more "anecdotal" snark…

Maybe there is a German law against spamming.

Depending on the spam, there is yes

§ 7 UWG Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb

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

#494

Post by sgc »

danaris wrote: post #465
sgc wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ai legal situation is going to go through growing pains. I am abstracting from the specific laws of any one country, just thinking about the general context: If ai output is not copyrightable, it should not be considered personal output. So nobody should be responsible for it. Or if it is considered personal output, it should be copyrightable. Or perhaps the ai companies will be liable for all output, and they wi…

That's trying to apply two completely separate legal frameworks, with different purposes, and force them to come to the same conclusion about one aspect of each of them. It's not that simple. It's perfectly legally consistent to say that AI-generated content has no copyright (because it's the product of a computer, not a human), and also that the human or organization operating an AI is legally responsible for anythi…

Yes, I was not sufficiently thinking about copyright as an arbitrary legal construct that can be manipulated at will. I don't think output should have copyright, but I would presume the copyright should it ever exist would belong to the user and not the LLM creator, just like photoshop does not give adobe rights to user output. However much like there is no copyright, the uncertain output from an LLM should never directly create legal liability - the user prompt and intention should, and legal standards regarding recklessness and malice should apply. Otherwise it's a bit like blaming somebody for the output of a roulette wheel.

So I think I like the current decision which is more about presentation, dissemination, application, and claims than content, and there should of course be liability for LLM creators if they are not actively dealing with results like CP, violence, or many other illegal or dangerous things.

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

#495

Post by raincole »

Hfuffzehn wrote: post #220

If I get it correctly I like the ruling. So Google has established a product called Search. For that product rules have been established. Google has monopolized that product. Now Google is replacing that product with a new product. But they keep calling it the same thing. Because they want to keep their monopoly. That is what has been deemed illegal. Gemini is not illegal. Pretending the worst version of Gemini is Se…

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.

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

#496

Post by naasking »

jojomodding wrote: post #295
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI systems will eventually be good enough (in 10-20 years) for companies to be able to deploy such systems with sufficient accuracy to afford the lawsuits. I doubt that will be the case, because of the long tail problem. (same with self driving cars and other ML related problems). In fact, we have counter-examples today. Newspapers (even reputable ones) can't get it right every time, despite the fact that they have…

Newspapers have mechanisms like corrections and apologies that can be used to "right" a published falsehoods. This relies on me being able to find out if a newspaper lies about me, which is usually easy since we can all go buy the same newspaper. With AI it is much harder to find out that it has been telling potential customers wrong things about my business.

> Newspapers have mechanisms like corrections and apologies that can be used to "right" a published falsehoods.

Ineffective mechanisms. So if we accept ineffective mechanisms as sufficient redress in those spheres, why not here too?

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

#497

Post by CamperBob2 »

polyamid23 wrote: post #324
CamperBob2 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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 th…

I don't know about that. Imagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries. After filtering the employable pile is large enough. You being in the unemployeable pile and me accepting it blindly, is not my problem. If there is any at all.

Imagine I want to sort people into employable and unemployable based on AI summaries.

Well, good luck with your... um... innovative HR strategy.

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

#498

Post by quentindanjou »

sva_ wrote: post #80
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.

It doesn't "bury [it] deep in their TOS", it says right under the box: > AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

Imagine going to a restaurant and when you pass your order "passing an order means accepting that there might be some poison in the food so double check before eating, good luck!"

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

#499

Post by CamperBob2 »

jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #470
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.

So if I went around telling all your friends and acquaintances that you're a pedophile rapist, you'd have no problem with that whatsoever?

Well, I would certainly need to warn them that there was some sort of psychotic stalker on the loose. This case is nothing like that. This case doesn't even rise to the level of someone scrawling For a good time call on the wall of a gas station men's room.

The point is, if you take Google AI summaries seriously, that's a "you" problem, not a "me" problem. I have a rather generic name, so it's safe to say it shows up in some pretty foul contexts. Life goes on.

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

#500

Post by stronglikedan »

raincole wrote: post #495
Hfuffzehn wrote: post #220

If I get it correctly I like the ruling. So Google has established a product called Search. For that product rules have been established. Google has monopolized that product. Now Google is replacing that product with a new product. But they keep calling it the same thing. Because they want to keep their monopoly. That is what has been deemed illegal. Gemini is not illegal. Pretending the worst version of Gemini is Se…

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.

Post reply on HN