3 ms·

This would be like suing Adobe because someone made something in photoshop, imo.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I agree. It would seem to me (having next to no knowledge about defamation laws) that defamation would be applicable to the person publishing the incorrect information, and not just one party in a private conversation. I suppose it's complicated if it can be shown that ChatGPT is consistently returning incorrect info for a range of questions but surely its responses aren't considered to be statements of fact?
- freedomben 3y ago
  This is a great point. This was a private comm between ChatGPT and the user who published it. It should be on the user to verify things like that before publishing. What does a world look like where people parrot whatever they hear with no responsiblity whatsoever? If we think we have "disinformation" problems now...
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    It's also against the ChatGPT terms of use: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use > (c) Restrictions. You may not (i) use the Services in a way that infringes, misappropriates or violates any person’s rights;
  - arp242 3y ago
    If I privately tell thousands or millions of people "John Doe committed fraud!" then am I not engaging in defamation?
    - freedomben 3y ago
      IANAL, but I think you make a good point. I'd love to hear from a lawyer or someone really educated on this.
akira2501 3y ago
There is a difference. A user has to intend to sit down with photoshop to produce something defamatory. A user does not need this intention to achieve the same result with GPT.
freedomben 3y ago
Kind of, but mostly no. I think it would be more akin to somebody opening photoshop and using a DALL-E type tool to ask it to generate a photo of a person, and the tool generates one that is wrong and damaging to the person (like maybe putting a pastor in a strip club or in an abortion clinic or something very damaging to the person's credibility). The user then tweets it out as a "real" photo of the person. OpenAI is definitely more involved in creating the thing than a current user of photoshop who just uses primitive tools to construct it. It's still silly IMHO to sue OpenAI
- addisonl 3y ago
  The person who posted the content is legally liable, not the company that created the tool, no matter how advanced it is. OpenAI didn’t go out and post the content.
  - arp242 3y ago
    It's not quite that simple: an unrelated third party asked to write a summary of a court case, and ChatGPT injected some false facts about Mark Walters, in spite of not being mentioned at all in this court case. Who knows how many times it's done something like this? Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times? I wouldn't be happy either if someone asked "please tell me about [random topic I'm vaguely related to]" and it started claiming I committed fraud (or worse!) If I go around falsely telling people "Mark Walters committed fraud!" then I'm probably not going to win the defamation case. I don't think "yeah, but the computer did it" is a very good defence.
    - avmich 3y ago
      I think OpenAI has plenty of possibilities to explain why they aren't the responsible side in this case. E.g. they can argue that a proper way to use the tool is to provide elaborate prompts which reasonably protect from unwanted responses. I think many will see that ChatGPT tool is substantially different from a news website.
    - addisonl 3y ago
sitkack 3y ago
I think it is more akin to someone using a search engine to find something, then suing the search engine for it. The difference here is if the thing found is "libelous" then the original publisher would be responsible, not the search engine. But in this case, there is no other "publisher". The publisher here is the person posting the chat transcript, they are the ones with agency and causing those bits to be presented in the public where they become libelous. I am 100% behind protections for journalists, but in this case it would be the journalist who "uncovered" the statements without corroborating them that is ultimately responsible for putting forth false facts. Also, not a lawyer, not legal advice.

I agree. It would seem to me (having next to no knowledge about defamation laws) that defamation would be applicable to the person publishing the incorrect information, and not just one party in a private conversation. I suppose it's complicated if it can be shown that ChatGPT is consistently returning incorrect info for a range of questions but surely its responses aren't considered to be statements of fact?

freedomben 3y ago
This is a great point. This was a private comm between ChatGPT and the user who published it. It should be on the user to verify things like that before publishing. What does a world look like where people parrot whatever they hear with no responsiblity whatsoever? If we think we have "disinformation" problems now...
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  It's also against the ChatGPT terms of use: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use > (c) Restrictions. You may not (i) use the Services in a way that infringes, misappropriates or violates any person’s rights;
- arp242 3y ago
  If I privately tell thousands or millions of people "John Doe committed fraud!" then am I not engaging in defamation?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    IANAL, but I think you make a good point. I'd love to hear from a lawyer or someone really educated on this.

akira2501 3y ago

There is a difference. A user has to intend to sit down with photoshop to produce something defamatory. A user does not need this intention to achieve the same result with GPT.

freedomben 3y ago

Kind of, but mostly no. I think it would be more akin to somebody opening photoshop and using a DALL-E type tool to ask it to generate a photo of a person, and the tool generates one that is wrong and damaging to the person (like maybe putting a pastor in a strip club or in an abortion clinic or something very damaging to the person's credibility). The user then tweets it out as a "real" photo of the person. OpenAI is definitely more involved in creating the thing than a current user of photoshop who just uses primitive tools to construct it. It's still silly IMHO to sue OpenAI

addisonl 3y ago
The person who posted the content is legally liable, not the company that created the tool, no matter how advanced it is. OpenAI didn’t go out and post the content.
- arp242 3y ago
  It's not quite that simple: an unrelated third party asked to write a summary of a court case, and ChatGPT injected some false facts about Mark Walters, in spite of not being mentioned at all in this court case. Who knows how many times it's done something like this? Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times? I wouldn't be happy either if someone asked "please tell me about [random topic I'm vaguely related to]" and it started claiming I committed fraud (or worse!) If I go around falsely telling people "Mark Walters committed fraud!" then I'm probably not going to win the defamation case. I don't think "yeah, but the computer did it" is a very good defence.
  - avmich 3y ago
    I think OpenAI has plenty of possibilities to explain why they aren't the responsible side in this case. E.g. they can argue that a proper way to use the tool is to provide elaborate prompts which reasonably protect from unwanted responses. I think many will see that ChatGPT tool is substantially different from a news website.
  - addisonl 3y ago

sitkack 3y ago

I think it is more akin to someone using a search engine to find something, then suing the search engine for it. The difference here is if the thing found is "libelous" then the original publisher would be responsible, not the search engine. But in this case, there is no other "publisher". The publisher here is the person posting the chat transcript, they are the ones with agency and causing those bits to be presented in the public where they become libelous. I am 100% behind protections for journalists, but in this case it would be the journalist who "uncovered" the statements without corroborating them that is ultimately responsible for putting forth false facts. Also, not a lawyer, not legal advice.