7 ms·
Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing statements?
Got access to new Bing, tried some chats. It got a few things factually wrong. Then I asked it about a minor business leader I knew who had a scandal.
The ai replied to the effect that:
“Yes, so and so had a scandal. They even had complaints filed with the better business bureau and the california bureau of consumer protection”
First part was accurate and sourced. Second part was invented out of whole cloth. The ai admitted as such when I pressed it.
But, isn’t that a false statement of fact and legally actionable? And it is Microsoft saying it.
- vineyardmike 4y agoNo one knows. People thought this about general internet postings then 230 saved the companies. Governments seem a lot less likely to “help” the companies today though. It’ll likely be decided similarly to copyrights: with messy and impactful trials. If the prompter owns a copyright, then you the searcher may end up responsible for the AIs statements (probs not though).
- fragmede 4y agohow about getting song lyrics out of bing or ChatGPT? those are covered under copyright, aren't they?
- muzani 4y agoGoogle already does this so I assume it's in line with the law. If they get the lyrics wrong, maybe that's under fair use?
- dec0dedab0de 4y agoGoogle pays for the right to display lyrics, but if they display them incorrectly that might be an issue. Especially if the wrong version somehow goes against the morals of the artist.
- muzani 4y agoAha, I didn't know they were paying for it.
- nickthegreek 4y agoChat with Bing has found to be given explicit instructions to not give out book passages and music lyrics. This came out the other day when someone was about to get it to say its code name (Sydney) along with it default prompt set.
- graeme 4y agoSection 230 was about hosting user comments though. A company is still liable for what they publish. Microsoft, for example, can’t publish an article on Microsoft.com defaming people and cite section 230. However, they can link to defamatory sites and excerpt snippets from them, for that isn’t considered publishing. Bing chat seems an awful lot more like publishing.
- vineyardmike 4y agoThe point is that pre-230, no one knew who was liable for comments, and 230 clarified. The tech industry needs a law detailing who is liable, the way 230 clarified. The AI-Generated art world seems to want the prompter to be the "artist", but if you prompt bing for search... are you the "creator"? It seems unlikely. On the other hand, Microsoft is "simply" using an algorithm to rehash the existing web.. just like search results page did before, so this is no different.
- gardenhedge 4y agoChatGPT is the publisher by the fact it has restrictions on your prompts. "As an AI model I can not provide..." etc.
- matt74827289 4y agoModeration of content does not imply publishing.
- graeme 4y agoSomeone is the publisher. It can’t be nobody
- gardenhedge 4y agoDoes Word moderate what I type into it? No because it's a tool. ChatGPT publishes
- graeme 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago> People thought this about general internet postings then 230 saved the companies. Not just the companies, also other users whose actions (e.g., reply with quote) would be “publication” under the law without Section 230.
- smoldesu 4y agoPretty much every EULA I've ever seen exempts the developer from liability from how the software is used. Is there reason to believe GPT is any different?
- rippercushions 4y agoGPT is irrelevant, the issue is somebody publishing the content. If I (or Microsoft) publish the claim "Joe Bloggs is a pedophile", and he isn't, it's defamation regardless of how the statement was generated. And yes, there's ample legal precedent that this applies to search engines too.
- jay_kyburz 4y agoYeah, this is different. Search is just snippets of other peoples websites. Search companies would like to see themselves as neutral. A common carrier, like the power companies. GPT is something different. Its original speech. Not just a snippet of somebody else's speech.
- graypegg 4y agoPlaying devil’s advocate: I guess the legal argument here could be that you wouldn’t be able to come after Logitech for making a keyboard used to publish lies. If microsoft could manage to convince a court that you could only get defamatory content out of bing by asking it to defame someone, I could see how that argument could work.
- dogma1138 4y agoThe analogy would be of Logitech would’ve released a keyboard that types for you and that keyboard then decided to type incorrect and possibly liable statements and not only that but that keyboard also decided to publish it. For Microsoft to be liable all you need to prove is that when asking a question without any guiding prompts the output contains libel. And this is the problem because Microsoft isn’t just pointing you to incorrect or libel information but they actively creating and promoting it.
- deleted 4y ago
- TekMol 4y agoHere is a one-liner: while(1) console.log('abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz '[Math.floor(Math.random()*27)]) It will create all the same defamatory statements as Bing's algorithm does. Am I liable for those because I gave you this tool?
- make3 4y agoyou're not presenting them to the public when they're asking something relating to that fact though
- TekMol 4y agoSo I am liable when I put it on a GitHub page and add a button? <script> function reply() { while(1) { c = Math.floor(Math.random()*27)); console.log('abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz '[c]) } } <script> Your question <input></input> <button onclick=reply()>Your Answer</button> Disclaimer: The answer is AI generated and might be wrong.
- make3 4y agoyour tool would not be thought of as a reasonable source of information by anyone, including the court, who are not mindless automatons but understand context & your disclaimer is a lot more visible than it is on bing etc.
- meghan_rain 4y ago[flagged]
- swatcoder 4y agoThat’s going to involve a series of court decisions that have yet to come. Microsoft is a huge target and filing a suit while this has a lot of buzz is a big PR opportunity, so those court cases will start coming soon enough. Clearly, Microsoft felt confident they could navigate whatever legal headaches and must believe that seizing this opportunity for Bing to outmaneuver Google was more valuable than whatever that might cost. What we can be sure they didn’t do is go in blind.
- LinkLink 4y agoThe end of capitalism and the beginning of fascism is when an invention hasn't even been released to the public yet and people are asking "What if somebody doesn't like it?" Fuck AI though ask an amish farmer how to update your antiquated jquery to angular and just realize how much happier than you he is.
- eshack94 4y agoI've never had finer furniture than that made from the Amish community near where I grew up. The craftsmanship and attention to detail is unreal. Also, this particular community made some of the best cheese I've ever tasted. There's something to be admired about their way of life.
- pictureofabear 4y agoWhich area is that from? I've been looking for some quality furniture.
- graeme 4y agoI’m in the public and I used it and it was pretty shocking how quickly and confidently it asserted a false and damaging fact about a non-public figure. How would you feel about BingChat being convinced that “LinkLink’s real name” has been fired from multiple jobs for fraud and it kept repeating it until pressed? That’s basically what it did in the convo I had
- LinkLink 4y agoSure man it can say what it wants its just BingChat, anyone who's opinion I actually respect can't have their worldview altered by a collection of tensor GPU's. increasingly as influence and MKultra esque government and social media programs continue to rollout, it is becoming blatantly obvious who is easily influenced and who is not. Which is exhausting, it shows just how few people really have any autonomy at all.
- corbulo 4y ago>innocuous thing is facism >disparaging comments about the amish Why?
- eshack94 4y agoLet me look into my crystal ball...
- GoblinSlayer 4y agoSee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Looks like a naive statement to me, not defamatory.
- graeme 4y agoI’m referring to civil liability
- wodenokoto 4y ago> First part was accurate and sourced. Second part was invented out of whole cloth. The ai admitted as such when I pressed it. Has anybody had success in getting ChatGPT to admit that true things it said was wrong?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hulitu 4y ago> Ask HN: Will Microsoft be liable for defamatory Bing statements? Companies are never held liable.
- throwawaybutwhy 4y agoAre you in any way affiliated with Google?
- WirelessGigabit 4y agoNo, the same way that they dodge responsibility when you Google for Rufus and they show you an ad for a fake Rufus with a trojan.