3 ms·

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

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.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        You would be free to make that argument in court but courts tend to be a bit more practical in how they approach a problem, probably because: a) as others have pointed out, ChatGPT is making what a reasonable person would consider a truth claim b) it’s not entirely random c) even if it were random as in your example, you’d have a hard time explaining why it was only a few months and not something a bit more like infinity feels to the average person before the defamatory statements popped out. On the balance of probabilities, you failed to implement true randomness or anything like it, and you’d be liable.

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.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      You would be free to make that argument in court but courts tend to be a bit more practical in how they approach a problem, probably because: a) as others have pointed out, ChatGPT is making what a reasonable person would consider a truth claim b) it’s not entirely random c) even if it were random as in your example, you’d have a hard time explaining why it was only a few months and not something a bit more like infinity feels to the average person before the defamatory statements popped out. On the balance of probabilities, you failed to implement true randomness or anything like it, and you’d be liable.