4 ms·
Libel has a pretty clear definition in most legal systems, and how it was generated doesn't come into play. What makes you think there's any real ambiguity here
by GavinMcG 4y ago
Libel has a pretty clear definition in most legal systems, and how it was generated doesn't come into play. What makes you think there's any real ambiguity here?
- andreareina 4y agoIIRC [ed: the tort of] defamation has to be a public statement, that might be hard to argue. If the chatgpt user then made a public statement that relied on these "facts", there'd be trouble.
- GavinMcG 4y agoYou might be thinking of "publication" which merely means sharing with a third person – even one. It's a term of art distinct from spreading it widely in a periodical, say.
- andreareina 4y agoIndeed. > *To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: ... 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
- polski-g 4y agoBecause the person who put in the GPT prompt had a hand in creating the libel.
- GavinMcG 4y agoThat's a stretch. Volokh queried “Whether sexual harassment by professors has been a problem at American law schools; please include at least five examples, together with quotes from relevant newspaper articles.” If Alice asked this question of Bob, you wouldn't say Alice "had a hand in" Bob's defamatory creation.