4 ms·

it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google

it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? not a quote from someone else, just completely made up based on nothing other than word salad would you honestly think "oh that's fine, because there's a size 8 text at the bottom saying it may be incorrect" I very much doubt it

gruez 1y ago
>it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content >how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result, which was a slanderous site saying that you're a registered sex offender. Should google still be held liable? If so, should they be held liable immediately, or only after a chance to issue a correction?
- simmerup 1y ago
  No, but the person Googles linking to should be held liable.
  - gruez 1y ago
    Why does google get off the hook in that case? I'd still be quite upset if it wasn't in the AI box, and even before the AI box there's plenty of people who take the snippets at face value.
    - simmerup 1y ago
      In my mind the Google result page is like a public space. You wouldn't punish the person who owns the park if someone inside it breaks the law as long as they were facilitating the law to be obeyed. And Google facilitiates the law by allowing you to take down slanderous material by putting in a request, and further you can go after the original slanderer if you like. But in this case Google itself is putting out slanderous information it has created itself. So Google in my mind is left holding the buck.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >But in this case Google itself is putting out slanderous information it has created itself. So Google in my mind is left holding the buck. Wouldn't this basically make any sort of AI as a service untennable? Moreover how would this apply to open weights models? If I asked llama whether someone was a pedophile, and it wrongly answered in the affirmative, can that person sue meta? What if it's run through a third party like Cerebras? Are they on the hook? If not, is all that's needed for AI companies to dodge responsibility is to launder their models through a third party?
        simmerup 1y ago
        > Wouldn't this basically make any sort of AI as a service untennable If the service was good enough that you'd accept liability for its bad side effects,no? If it isn't good enough? Good riddance. The company will have to employ a human instead. The billionaires coffers will take the hit, I'm sure. E: > If not, is all that's needed for AI companies to dodge responsibility is to launder their models through a third party? Honestly, my analogy would be that an LLm is a tool like a printing press. If a newspaper prints libel, you go after the newspaper, not the person that sold them the printing press. Same here. It would be on the person using the LLM and disseminating its results, rather than the LLM publisher. The person showing the result of the LLM should have some liability if those results are wrong or cause harm
  - anonymars 1y ago
    Isn't the whole point that there was no source being linked to, because the AI made it up?
    - simmerup 1y ago
      Sorry, I was repsonding to this: > Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result
      - anonymars 1y ago
        Got it, and agreed it's a very different scenario
- atq2119 1y ago
  Yes, they should also be held liable, but clearly the case of AI is worse. In your hypothetical, Google is only copying a snippet from a website. They're only responsible for amplifying the reach of that snippet. In the OP case, Google are editorializing, which means it is clearly Google's own speech doing the libel.
- summermusic 1y ago
  That hypothetical scenario does not matter, it is a distraction from the real issue which is that Google’s tool produces defamatory text that is unsubstantiated by any material online. The source of the defamatory text is Google’s own tool, therefore it is Google’s fault, and therefore they should be held liable immediately.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  That would depend on whether the snippet was presented as "this is a view of the other website" vs "this is some information" In the latter case I'm fine with "yes" and "immediately". When you build a system that purports to give answers to real world questions, then you're responsible for the answers given. information is from another website and may not be correct.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >That would depend on whether the snippet was presented as "this is a view of the other website" vs "this is some information" So all google had to do was reword their disclaimer differently?
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      Stop strawmanning. No, there's no "wording" that gets you off the hook. That's the point. It's a question of design and presentation. Would a legal "Reasonable Person" seeing the site know it was another site's info, e.g. literally showing the site in an iframe, or is google presenting it as their own info? If google is presenting the output of a text generator they wrote, it's easily the latter.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >Stop strawmanning. Nice try, but asking a question confirming your opponent's position isn't a strawman. >No, there's no "wording" that gets you off the hook. That's the point. It's a question of design and presentation. Would a legal "Reasonable Person" seeing the site know it was another site's info, e.g. literally showing the site in an iframe, or is google presenting it as their own info? So you want the disclaimer to be reworded and moved up top?
        margalabargala 1y ago
        > Nice try, but asking a question confirming your opponent's position isn't a strawman. It isn't inherently, but it certainly can be! For example in the way you used it. If I were to ask, confirming your position, "so you believe the presence of a disclaimer removes all legal responsibility?" then you would in turn accuse me of strawmanning. Back to the topic at hand, I believe the bar that would need to be met exceeds the definition of "disclaimer", regardless of wording or position. So no.
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  The article author could be sued. Gemeni cannot be.
- haswell 1y ago
  Why would we suppose AI isn’t in the picture? You’re describing unrelated scenarios. Apples and oranges. You can’t wish away the AI and then conclude what’s happening is acceptable because of how something entirely unrelated has been treated in the past. As a form of argument, this strikes me as pretty fallacious. Are you claiming that the output of a model built by Google is somehow equivalent to displaying a 3rd party site in a search result?
mintplant 1y ago
I believe 'meindnoch was being sarcastic.
- markburns 1y ago
  I'd love to know why this happens so much. There's enough people in both groups that do spot it and don't spot it. I don't think I've ever felt the need for a sarcasm marker when I've seen one. Yet without it, it seems there will always be people taking things literally. It doesn't feel like something where people gradually pick up on it either over the years, it just feels like sarcasm is either redundantly pointed out for those who get it or it is guaranteed to get a literal interpretation response. Maybe it's because the literal interpretation of sarcasm is almost always so wrong that it inspires people to comment much more. So we just can't get away from this inefficient encoding/communication pattern. But then again, maybe I'm just often assuming people mean things that sound so wrong to me as sarcasm, so perhaps there are a lot of people out there honestly saying the opposite to what I think they are saying as a joke.
  - jjj123 1y ago
    The /s thing is the most surefire way to make whatever joke you’re making not funny at all, so I say go ahead and be sarcastic even if not everyone gets it. And yeah, to your point about the literal interpretation of sarcasm being so absurd people want to correct it, I think you’re right. HN is a particularly pedantic corner of the internet, many of us like to be “right” for whatever reason.
    - delecti 1y ago
      A lot of us are also autistic, and I suspect there's a sizable overlap with the people who like to be right. Though as someone in that overlap, it's less "I want to be the one who brings correctness" and more "I want discussions to only contain accurate facts". But that aside, it is just simply the case that there are a lot of reasons why sarcasm can fail to land. So you just have to decide whether to risk ruining your joke with a tone indicator, or risk your joke failing to land and someone "correcting" you.

gruez 1y ago

>it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content >how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender? Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result, which was a slanderous site saying that you're a registered sex offender. Should google still be held liable? If so, should they be held liable immediately, or only after a chance to issue a correction?

simmerup 1y ago
No, but the person Googles linking to should be held liable.
- gruez 1y ago
  Why does google get off the hook in that case? I'd still be quite upset if it wasn't in the AI box, and even before the AI box there's plenty of people who take the snippets at face value.
  - simmerup 1y ago
    In my mind the Google result page is like a public space. You wouldn't punish the person who owns the park if someone inside it breaks the law as long as they were facilitating the law to be obeyed. And Google facilitiates the law by allowing you to take down slanderous material by putting in a request, and further you can go after the original slanderer if you like. But in this case Google itself is putting out slanderous information it has created itself. So Google in my mind is left holding the buck.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >But in this case Google itself is putting out slanderous information it has created itself. So Google in my mind is left holding the buck. Wouldn't this basically make any sort of AI as a service untennable? Moreover how would this apply to open weights models? If I asked llama whether someone was a pedophile, and it wrongly answered in the affirmative, can that person sue meta? What if it's run through a third party like Cerebras? Are they on the hook? If not, is all that's needed for AI companies to dodge responsibility is to launder their models through a third party?
      - simmerup 1y ago
        > Wouldn't this basically make any sort of AI as a service untennable If the service was good enough that you'd accept liability for its bad side effects,no? If it isn't good enough? Good riddance. The company will have to employ a human instead. The billionaires coffers will take the hit, I'm sure. E: > If not, is all that's needed for AI companies to dodge responsibility is to launder their models through a third party? Honestly, my analogy would be that an LLm is a tool like a printing press. If a newspaper prints libel, you go after the newspaper, not the person that sold them the printing press. Same here. It would be on the person using the LLM and disseminating its results, rather than the LLM publisher. The person showing the result of the LLM should have some liability if those results are wrong or cause harm
- anonymars 1y ago
  Isn't the whole point that there was no source being linked to, because the AI made it up?
  - simmerup 1y ago
    Sorry, I was repsonding to this: > Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result
    - anonymars 1y ago
      Got it, and agreed it's a very different scenario
atq2119 1y ago
Yes, they should also be held liable, but clearly the case of AI is worse. In your hypothetical, Google is only copying a snippet from a website. They're only responsible for amplifying the reach of that snippet. In the OP case, Google are editorializing, which means it is clearly Google's own speech doing the libel.
summermusic 1y ago
That hypothetical scenario does not matter, it is a distraction from the real issue which is that Google’s tool produces defamatory text that is unsubstantiated by any material online. The source of the defamatory text is Google’s own tool, therefore it is Google’s fault, and therefore they should be held liable immediately.
margalabargala 1y ago
That would depend on whether the snippet was presented as "this is a view of the other website" vs "this is some information" In the latter case I'm fine with "yes" and "immediately". When you build a system that purports to give answers to real world questions, then you're responsible for the answers given. information is from another website and may not be correct.
- gruez 1y ago
  >That would depend on whether the snippet was presented as "this is a view of the other website" vs "this is some information" So all google had to do was reword their disclaimer differently?
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    Stop strawmanning. No, there's no "wording" that gets you off the hook. That's the point. It's a question of design and presentation. Would a legal "Reasonable Person" seeing the site know it was another site's info, e.g. literally showing the site in an iframe, or is google presenting it as their own info? If google is presenting the output of a text generator they wrote, it's easily the latter.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Stop strawmanning. Nice try, but asking a question confirming your opponent's position isn't a strawman. >No, there's no "wording" that gets you off the hook. That's the point. It's a question of design and presentation. Would a legal "Reasonable Person" seeing the site know it was another site's info, e.g. literally showing the site in an iframe, or is google presenting it as their own info? So you want the disclaimer to be reworded and moved up top?
      - margalabargala 1y ago
        > Nice try, but asking a question confirming your opponent's position isn't a strawman. It isn't inherently, but it certainly can be! For example in the way you used it. If I were to ask, confirming your position, "so you believe the presence of a disclaimer removes all legal responsibility?" then you would in turn accuse me of strawmanning. Back to the topic at hand, I believe the bar that would need to be met exceeds the definition of "disclaimer", regardless of wording or position. So no.
aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
The article author could be sued. Gemeni cannot be.
haswell 1y ago
Why would we suppose AI isn’t in the picture? You’re describing unrelated scenarios. Apples and oranges. You can’t wish away the AI and then conclude what’s happening is acceptable because of how something entirely unrelated has been treated in the past. As a form of argument, this strikes me as pretty fallacious. Are you claiming that the output of a model built by Google is somehow equivalent to displaying a 3rd party site in a search result?

mintplant 1y ago

I believe 'meindnoch was being sarcastic.

markburns 1y ago
I'd love to know why this happens so much. There's enough people in both groups that do spot it and don't spot it. I don't think I've ever felt the need for a sarcasm marker when I've seen one. Yet without it, it seems there will always be people taking things literally. It doesn't feel like something where people gradually pick up on it either over the years, it just feels like sarcasm is either redundantly pointed out for those who get it or it is guaranteed to get a literal interpretation response. Maybe it's because the literal interpretation of sarcasm is almost always so wrong that it inspires people to comment much more. So we just can't get away from this inefficient encoding/communication pattern. But then again, maybe I'm just often assuming people mean things that sound so wrong to me as sarcasm, so perhaps there are a lot of people out there honestly saying the opposite to what I think they are saying as a joke.
- jjj123 1y ago
  The /s thing is the most surefire way to make whatever joke you’re making not funny at all, so I say go ahead and be sarcastic even if not everyone gets it. And yeah, to your point about the literal interpretation of sarcasm being so absurd people want to correct it, I think you’re right. HN is a particularly pedantic corner of the internet, many of us like to be “right” for whatever reason.
  - delecti 1y ago
    A lot of us are also autistic, and I suspect there's a sizable overlap with the people who like to be right. Though as someone in that overlap, it's less "I want to be the one who brings correctness" and more "I want discussions to only contain accurate facts". But that aside, it is just simply the case that there are a lot of reasons why sarcasm can fail to land. So you just have to decide whether to risk ruining your joke with a tone indicator, or risk your joke failing to land and someone "correcting" you.