3 ms·

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 cont

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
  At the end of the day you are liable for what you do, if you don’t read what a tool outputs that’s on you.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    Right, but that applies to OpenAI too. You're liable for what you do with your tools. If your tool (construction crane/GPUs) cause harm (dropped an AC unit on the neighbor's house/slandered an individual's reputation), you're going to get sued for the damage. It may involve the injured party suing their neighbor, who then sues the construction contractor, who may then have to face higher business insurance premiums or even license revocation if the harm is severe or part of a recurring pattern.
gizmo686 3y ago
There is no allegation that the content was shared by anyone other than the single user of ChatGPT that created the initial prompt. That user was a journalist. There is no information about what the journalist did with the information, but if I had to guess, the journalist recognized that it was nonsense and either him or a colleague contacted Walters because they thought it could make for a a good ChatGPT story. Legally speaking, it is not obvious that this is relevent. Defamation does not require widespread publication. A libelous statement to a single person is enough. Further, defamation pe se does not require proving damages; and a false claim that someone committed a crime qualifies as defamation per se.
austhrow743 3y ago
If OpenAI didn't go out and post the content then where did Fred Riehl see the content?

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
At the end of the day you are liable for what you do, if you don’t read what a tool outputs that’s on you.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Right, but that applies to OpenAI too. You're liable for what you do with your tools. If your tool (construction crane/GPUs) cause harm (dropped an AC unit on the neighbor's house/slandered an individual's reputation), you're going to get sued for the damage. It may involve the injured party suing their neighbor, who then sues the construction contractor, who may then have to face higher business insurance premiums or even license revocation if the harm is severe or part of a recurring pattern.

gizmo686 3y ago

There is no allegation that the content was shared by anyone other than the single user of ChatGPT that created the initial prompt. That user was a journalist. There is no information about what the journalist did with the information, but if I had to guess, the journalist recognized that it was nonsense and either him or a colleague contacted Walters because they thought it could make for a a good ChatGPT story. Legally speaking, it is not obvious that this is relevent. Defamation does not require widespread publication. A libelous statement to a single person is enough. Further, defamation pe se does not require proving damages; and a false claim that someone committed a crime qualifies as defamation per se.

austhrow743 3y ago

If OpenAI didn't go out and post the content then where did Fred Riehl see the content?