I’ve seen some legal experts talk about how Google basically got away from misinformation lawsuits because they weren’t creating misinformation, they were giving you search results that contained misinformation, but that wasn’t their fault and they were making an effort to combat those kinds of search results. They were talking about how the outcome of those lawsuits might be different if Google’s AI is the one creating the misinformation, since that’s on them.
Yeah the Air Canada case probably isn’t a big indicator on where the legal system will end up on this. The guy was entitled to some money if he submitted the request on time, but the reason he didn’t was because the chatbot gave the wrong information. It’s the kind of case that shouldn’t have gotten to a courtroom, because come on, you’re supposed to give him the money any it’s just some paperwork screwup caused by your chatbot that created this whole problem.
In terms of someone someone getting sick because they put glue on their pizza because google’s AI told them to… we’ll have to see. They may do the thing where “a reasonable person should know that the things an AI says isn’t always fact” which will probably hold water if google keeps a disclaimer on their AI generated results.
They’re going to fight tooth and nail to do the usual: remove any responsibility for what their AI says and does but do everything they can to keep the money any AI error generates.
Tough question. I doubt it though. I would guess they would have to prove mal intent in some form. When a person slanders someone they use a preformed bias to promote oneself while hurting another intentionally. While you can argue the learned data contained a bias, it promotes itself by being a constant source of information that users can draw from and therefore make money and it would in theory be hurting the company. Did the llm intentionally try to hurt the company would be the last bump. They all have holes. If I were a judge/jury and you gave me the decisions I would say it isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are AI products released by a company liable for slander? 🤷🏻
I predict we will find out in the next few years.
We had a case in Canada where Air Canada was forced to give a customer a refund after its AI told him he was eligible for one, because the judge stated that Air Canada was responsible for what their AI said.
So, maybe?
I’ve seen some legal experts talk about how Google basically got away from misinformation lawsuits because they weren’t creating misinformation, they were giving you search results that contained misinformation, but that wasn’t their fault and they were making an effort to combat those kinds of search results. They were talking about how the outcome of those lawsuits might be different if Google’s AI is the one creating the misinformation, since that’s on them.
Yeah the Air Canada case probably isn’t a big indicator on where the legal system will end up on this. The guy was entitled to some money if he submitted the request on time, but the reason he didn’t was because the chatbot gave the wrong information. It’s the kind of case that shouldn’t have gotten to a courtroom, because come on, you’re supposed to give him the money any it’s just some paperwork screwup caused by your chatbot that created this whole problem.
In terms of someone someone getting sick because they put glue on their pizza because google’s AI told them to… we’ll have to see. They may do the thing where “a reasonable person should know that the things an AI says isn’t always fact” which will probably hold water if google keeps a disclaimer on their AI generated results.
They’re going to fight tooth and nail to do the usual: remove any responsibility for what their AI says and does but do everything they can to keep the money any AI error generates.
Slander is spoken. In print, it’s libel.
- J. Jonah Jameson
That’s ok, ChatGPT can talk now.
At the least it should have a prominent “for entertainment purposes only”, except it fails that purpose, too
I think the image generators are good for generating shitposts quickly. Best use case I’ve found thus far. Not worth the environmental impact, though.
Tough question. I doubt it though. I would guess they would have to prove mal intent in some form. When a person slanders someone they use a preformed bias to promote oneself while hurting another intentionally. While you can argue the learned data contained a bias, it promotes itself by being a constant source of information that users can draw from and therefore make money and it would in theory be hurting the company. Did the llm intentionally try to hurt the company would be the last bump. They all have holes. If I were a judge/jury and you gave me the decisions I would say it isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt.
Slander/libel nothing. It’s going to end up killing someone.
If you’re a start up I guarantee it is
Big tech… I’ll put my chips in hell no
Yet another nail in the coffin of rule of law.
🤑🤑🤑🤑