3 ms·

Why is it good? Everyone with common sense knows AI can be wrong. And it’s not buried in their TOS. It’s in the chat box. But even if it wasn’t, it’s ridiculous

Why is it good? Everyone with common sense knows AI can be wrong. And it’s not buried in their TOS. It’s in the chat box. But even if it wasn’t, it’s ridiculous to create liability for AI chatbots.

ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
Common sense is so rare it might as well be a super power. e.g. The failed marketing of A&W's third-pounder burger as so many people (in the USA) didn't believe that it was bigger than a quarter-pounder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-pound_burger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-pound_burger
jqpabc123 4mo ago
it’s ridiculous to create liability for AI chatbots. Liability isn't being *created* here, it has existed legally for a very long time. False information can cause real harm --- and the legal burden of proof is on the source. Search engines were provided legal exemption on the basis that they were simply quoting/referencing 3rd party sources who where legally liable for the content. LLM chatbots legally exceed these bounds by fabricating info/content on their own ---data that does not exist elsewhere. This is a liability issue waiting to happen as there is no other responsible party/source to blame.
- WarmWash 4mo ago
  AI overviews cites it's sources though...
  - jqpabc123 4mo ago
    Yes, AI would never list irrelevant sources and fabricate links. https://blog.platinumids.com/blog/ai-hallucination-crisis-courts-2026 https://blog.platinumids.com/blog/ai-hallucination-crisis-co...
    - WarmWash 4mo ago
      AI overviews automatically produces links to it's sources for each statement, so it's trivial to check.
      - jqpabc123 4mo ago
        so it's trivial to check. It's trivial to use a search engine instead of AI. But people still use AI to save the time needed to read and check. But in any case, none of this absolves slander. The legal burden of proof is still on the source --- which is AI.
  - pesus 4mo ago
    And often still makes claims that completely contradict those sources it's "citing".

ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago

Common sense is so rare it might as well be a super power. e.g. The failed marketing of A&W's third-pounder burger as so many people (in the USA) didn't believe that it was bigger than a quarter-pounder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-pound_burger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-pound_burger

jqpabc123 4mo ago

it’s ridiculous to create liability for AI chatbots. Liability isn't being *created* here, it has existed legally for a very long time. False information can cause real harm --- and the legal burden of proof is on the source. Search engines were provided legal exemption on the basis that they were simply quoting/referencing 3rd party sources who where legally liable for the content. LLM chatbots legally exceed these bounds by fabricating info/content on their own ---data that does not exist elsewhere. This is a liability issue waiting to happen as there is no other responsible party/source to blame.

WarmWash 4mo ago
AI overviews cites it's sources though...
- jqpabc123 4mo ago
  Yes, AI would never list irrelevant sources and fabricate links. https://blog.platinumids.com/blog/ai-hallucination-crisis-courts-2026 https://blog.platinumids.com/blog/ai-hallucination-crisis-co...
  - WarmWash 4mo ago
    AI overviews automatically produces links to it's sources for each statement, so it's trivial to check.
    - jqpabc123 4mo ago
      so it's trivial to check. It's trivial to use a search engine instead of AI. But people still use AI to save the time needed to read and check. But in any case, none of this absolves slander. The legal burden of proof is still on the source --- which is AI.
- pesus 4mo ago
  And often still makes claims that completely contradict those sources it's "citing".