5 ms·

Isn't presenting answers to questions the same as publishing when it comes to ChatGPT? How many people must ChatGPT provide defamatory answers to before it beco

Isn't presenting answers to questions the same as publishing when it comes to ChatGPT? How many people must ChatGPT provide defamatory answers to before it becomes defamation?

wvenable 4y ago
ChatGPT is a text generator. It's a tool. It's not publishing anymore than MS Word is publishing. You can certainly take that output of the tool and publish it but then you become the publisher.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  Wait wait wait you’re saying the operator is accountable for their actions? Just like ChatGPT was programmed to drill into a user any time it picks up on being misused? Reminding the user that they are ultimately responsible and liable for their actions, including how they use the output? From how some make it sound, you would think ChatGPT was giving press conferences. > oh no but what if it did? Did it set itself up to do so? No? You found the liable humans.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Okay, what if you s/ChatGPT/BingChat?
- brigandish 4y ago
  ChatGPT is a text generator whose output is published on a publicly accessible website. That's a bit different than MS Word autocompleting something in a private document.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    So you're saying that Google Docs is a greater liability than MS Word locally? Every ChatGPT session is personal. You write a prompt and generate output. You're not publishing that output.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      They're publishing it, to the user. Google Docs nor Word are republishing anything but ChatGPT may well do.
      - wvenable 4y ago
        If someone created a website that randomly strung English words together paired with a grammar checker so it always, at least, produces actual sentences would that be liable for publishing incorrect facts?
        brigandish 4y ago
        If defamatory statements were made then yes. From [1]: > There are four criteria used today in the United States: > The statement was false, but was claimed as true. > The statement must have been made to a third, previously uninvolved party. > The statement must have been made by the accused party. > The statement caused harm. > Those who are not classified as public figures are considered private figures. To support a claim for defamation, in most states a private figure need only show negligence by the publisher, a much lower standard than "actual malice." Laws differ in different states, within the US and without. As you can see here[2], the UK has similar rules to the US (which you might expect but I would say not to presume so easily) in that intent or malice, i.e. mens rea, are rarely part of the equation. So yes, a machine spitting out what would be defamatory statements from anyone else's mouth are still defamation and would land the publisher in trouble if harm could be ascertained. I'm willing to hazard a bet that most people can see a difference between the kind of thing Google Docs produces when used as a word processor to the kind of thing ChatGPT produces. [1] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/130/how-is-defamation-defined https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/130/how-is-defamatio... [2] https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/a-brief-guide-to-the-tort-of-defamation/ https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/a-brief-guide-to-the-tort-of-d...
        wvenable 4y ago
        > The statement was false, but was claimed as true Who's claiming the statement is true? My website of random sentences that happens to write something about anything is merely coincidental. With ChatGPT it's less random but no less coincidental. It's clearly and obviously fallible and will give you whatever reasonable sounding answer it can. Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters will eventually defame everyone.
  - kristjansson 4y ago
    ChatGPT output is only published in the sense it’s available over the internet to a specific user, just like a Google Doc, or word in Office 365. Any publication to an actually audience is the responsibility of the human directing that.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Google Docs is only publishing one thing to one user, unlike ChatGPT which may well publish the same thing to several users, and is giving output of an entirely different nature to a word processor. Spelling corrections are only answers when used in a spelling test.
causality0 4y ago
Even if a text completion engine like GPT had any responsibility for truthfulness, which it doesn't, there's a disclaimer right there on the page you have to agree to in order to use it. Trying to pin blame on ChatGPT for defamation is like trying to sue Snapchat because its filter put cat ears on you when you in fact do not wear cat ears.
- manicennui 4y ago
  So you are okay with my new website that randomly makes false claims about you, as long as I have a disclaimer and don't actually understand how my software works?
  - causality0 4y ago
    Sure thing, go crazy. Nor do I care if you cast me as a villain in your D&D campaign or a racist pedophile in your novel. I don't care about made-up nonsense when there's a sign there that says it's made-up nonsense. All responsibility and liability is with the human being who repeats the nonsense as fact.

Isn't presenting answers to questions the same as publishing when it comes to ChatGPT? How many people must ChatGPT provide defamatory answers to before it becomes defamation?

wvenable 4y ago

ChatGPT is a text generator. It's a tool. It's not publishing anymore than MS Word is publishing. You can certainly take that output of the tool and publish it but then you become the publisher.

catchnear4321 4y ago
Wait wait wait you’re saying the operator is accountable for their actions? Just like ChatGPT was programmed to drill into a user any time it picks up on being misused? Reminding the user that they are ultimately responsible and liable for their actions, including how they use the output? From how some make it sound, you would think ChatGPT was giving press conferences. > oh no but what if it did? Did it set itself up to do so? No? You found the liable humans.
rootusrootus 4y ago
Okay, what if you s/ChatGPT/BingChat?
brigandish 4y ago
ChatGPT is a text generator whose output is published on a publicly accessible website. That's a bit different than MS Word autocompleting something in a private document.
- wvenable 4y ago
  So you're saying that Google Docs is a greater liability than MS Word locally? Every ChatGPT session is personal. You write a prompt and generate output. You're not publishing that output.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    They're publishing it, to the user. Google Docs nor Word are republishing anything but ChatGPT may well do.
    - wvenable 4y ago
      If someone created a website that randomly strung English words together paired with a grammar checker so it always, at least, produces actual sentences would that be liable for publishing incorrect facts?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        If defamatory statements were made then yes. From [1]: > There are four criteria used today in the United States: > The statement was false, but was claimed as true. > The statement must have been made to a third, previously uninvolved party. > The statement must have been made by the accused party. > The statement caused harm. > Those who are not classified as public figures are considered private figures. To support a claim for defamation, in most states a private figure need only show negligence by the publisher, a much lower standard than "actual malice." Laws differ in different states, within the US and without. As you can see here[2], the UK has similar rules to the US (which you might expect but I would say not to presume so easily) in that intent or malice, i.e. mens rea, are rarely part of the equation. So yes, a machine spitting out what would be defamatory statements from anyone else's mouth are still defamation and would land the publisher in trouble if harm could be ascertained. I'm willing to hazard a bet that most people can see a difference between the kind of thing Google Docs produces when used as a word processor to the kind of thing ChatGPT produces. [1] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/130/how-is-defamation-defined https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/130/how-is-defamatio... [2] https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/a-brief-guide-to-the-tort-of-defamation/ https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/a-brief-guide-to-the-tort-of-d...
        wvenable 4y ago
        > The statement was false, but was claimed as true Who's claiming the statement is true? My website of random sentences that happens to write something about anything is merely coincidental. With ChatGPT it's less random but no less coincidental. It's clearly and obviously fallible and will give you whatever reasonable sounding answer it can. Infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters will eventually defame everyone.
- kristjansson 4y ago
  ChatGPT output is only published in the sense it’s available over the internet to a specific user, just like a Google Doc, or word in Office 365. Any publication to an actually audience is the responsibility of the human directing that.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Google Docs is only publishing one thing to one user, unlike ChatGPT which may well publish the same thing to several users, and is giving output of an entirely different nature to a word processor. Spelling corrections are only answers when used in a spelling test.

causality0 4y ago

Even if a text completion engine like GPT had any responsibility for truthfulness, which it doesn't, there's a disclaimer right there on the page you have to agree to in order to use it. Trying to pin blame on ChatGPT for defamation is like trying to sue Snapchat because its filter put cat ears on you when you in fact do not wear cat ears.

manicennui 4y ago
So you are okay with my new website that randomly makes false claims about you, as long as I have a disclaimer and don't actually understand how my software works?
- causality0 4y ago
  Sure thing, go crazy. Nor do I care if you cast me as a villain in your D&D campaign or a racist pedophile in your novel. I don't care about made-up nonsense when there's a sign there that says it's made-up nonsense. All responsibility and liability is with the human being who repeats the nonsense as fact.