6 ms·

GPT 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 defamati

GPT 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 ago
Yeah, 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 ago
Playing 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 ago
  The 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
[deleted]
smoldesu 4y ago
It's defamation if Joe Bloggs wants to sue. He can certainly try, but first he has to prove that Bing was actively defaming him. Alright, let's see: - Was this content published or promoted to other people? (No) - Was it served in accordance with US law and the license agreement (Yes) Proving either of those wrong would take a village. Assuming you get past that, you then have to prove that it was done with malicious or defamatory itent. How do you intend on doing that? You could subpeona OpenAI for their training data, but that only works if the training data was manipulated with dishonest intent. Sure, there are AI-specific unknowns in the legal world. Entertaining this is no more relevant than suing Microsoft for a Swastika you saw on an online Minecraft world though - you knew what you were getting into when you signed up.
- graeme 4y ago
  That’s just for the US though. I’m in Canada and you absolutely don’t need to prove malicious intent for a civil suit. And new Bing is being rolled out here.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  Was this content published or promoted to other people? (No) It's not difficult to run the search on another computer. you then have to prove that it was done with malicious or defamatory itent Microsoft is showing a reckless disregard for the truth, which is enough. [1] Microsoft has a history with this. Microsoft shut down within a single day a previous chat bot, Tay. [2] Tay was replaced with Zo, which was eventually shut-down. [3] They are disregarding their own prior experiences with these sorts of AI chat bots. They are also disregarding that chatgpt was designed to work as a text generator that has zero regard for the truth. [4] Anyone who recalls history or who works in the field knows that Microsoft is ignoring the expected and actual results of Bing's AI. Plus, that's just for the US. The rules are different elsewhere. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-slander-key-elements-claim.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-sla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo_(bot) [4] https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-gpt-3-in-5-minutes-7fe35c3a1e52?gi=45f49bcc0b90 https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-gpt-3-in-5-minu...

jay_kyburz 4y ago

Yeah, 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 ago

Playing 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 ago
The 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

[deleted]

smoldesu 4y ago

It's defamation if Joe Bloggs wants to sue. He can certainly try, but first he has to prove that Bing was actively defaming him. Alright, let's see: - Was this content published or promoted to other people? (No) - Was it served in accordance with US law and the license agreement (Yes) Proving either of those wrong would take a village. Assuming you get past that, you then have to prove that it was done with malicious or defamatory itent. How do you intend on doing that? You could subpeona OpenAI for their training data, but that only works if the training data was manipulated with dishonest intent. Sure, there are AI-specific unknowns in the legal world. Entertaining this is no more relevant than suing Microsoft for a Swastika you saw on an online Minecraft world though - you knew what you were getting into when you signed up.

graeme 4y ago
That’s just for the US though. I’m in Canada and you absolutely don’t need to prove malicious intent for a civil suit. And new Bing is being rolled out here.
IncRnd 4y ago
Was this content published or promoted to other people? (No) It's not difficult to run the search on another computer. you then have to prove that it was done with malicious or defamatory itent Microsoft is showing a reckless disregard for the truth, which is enough. [1] Microsoft has a history with this. Microsoft shut down within a single day a previous chat bot, Tay. [2] Tay was replaced with Zo, which was eventually shut-down. [3] They are disregarding their own prior experiences with these sorts of AI chat bots. They are also disregarding that chatgpt was designed to work as a text generator that has zero regard for the truth. [4] Anyone who recalls history or who works in the field knows that Microsoft is ignoring the expected and actual results of Bing's AI. Plus, that's just for the US. The rules are different elsewhere. [1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-slander-key-elements-claim.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-sla... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay_(bot) [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo_(bot) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zo_(bot) [4] https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-gpt-3-in-5-minutes-7fe35c3a1e52?gi=45f49bcc0b90 https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-gpt-3-in-5-minu...