5 ms·
No one knows. People thought this about general internet postings then 230 saved the companies. Governments seem a lot less likely to “help” the companies toda
by vineyardmike 4y ago
No 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.