I am not a lawyer, but I would assume (!) that libel implies publishing the libelous information. Which means you cannot be guilty of libel for writing a ChatGP

I am not a lawyer, but I would assume (!) that libel implies publishing the libelous information. Which means you cannot be guilty of libel for writing a ChatGPT prompt any more than you can be guilty of libel for writing "Brian Hood murders puppies" in a secret personal diary. Unless, as you stated, you go and publish the information as fact. > I think it's the whole AI/agency debate that even gives any credence at all to this being libel, but I think most of us agree at this point that it's just a text generating tool. The text it generates is largely irrelevant to a discussion about libel IMO, because libelous generated text should just be left unpublished/unused. Well, we got here because an Australian politician is in fact suing for libel, which I think is exceedingly ridiculous and potentially a dangerous precedent, whatever you think of language models.