4 ms·

If our standard for laws would be that "well no reasonable person would do this/believe this" then nothing would be illegal, there'd be no need to label any pro

by sham1 4mo ago

If our standard for laws would be that "well no reasonable person would do this/believe this" then nothing would be illegal, there'd be no need to label any product as potentiality harmful, etc. Do you really want to go there? That everything in the world would have a literal "caveat emptor" attached to it?

gblargg 4mo ago
I thought Google labeled its AI summary with a disclaimer already. I don't want companies to be forced to only offer safe-for-children services.
- bergen 4mo ago
  And the european consumer doesn't want harmful products to be beta tested on the public.
- sham1 4mo ago
  There is a disclaimer, yes, but you have to admit that it's pretty shit, innit? I mean for one, it's about the size of a human hair, and at least when I tried it, the disclaimer came up only when I clicked the "Show More" button. It might admittedly show up earlier if the response is shorter, admittedly I don't know. Also personally I'm a bit uneasy with the idea that just with a simple disclaimer they could avoid any and all liability. Not your argument, I know, but still. As for not wanting to force companies to release only "safe-for-children products", I do actually agree. However I consider it to be a matter of degree, and in this case for example, I think that if nothing else, Google should say the very least make the disclaimer a bit more prominent and maybe tweak the model so that it's not quite as confident in its claims in the AI Overview.
  - gblargg 4mo ago
    Yeah, they could make it more prominent at the top. I would be fine if it said that "AI may give totally wrong answers" but that would never happen.
  - ben_w 4mo ago
    > As for not wanting to force companies to release only "safe-for-children products", I do actually agree That would be nice, but as every effort to restrict kids from using software which are not safe-for-children keeps getting condemned for being invasive surveilence, and every effort to stop kids getting the hardware instead gets condemned because of how much of society is now built on assumption everyone has a phone… Something has to give. Dunno what, but something.
- 9dev 4mo ago
  It's unbelievable how lightly some people hand over the tools for mass manipulation to a single corporation in the name of freedom of all things. We're not talking about a laser pointer here.
  - soco 4mo ago
    Heck even laser pointers are regulated, now that we're thinking about it.

by sham1 4mo ago

gblargg 4mo ago

I thought Google labeled its AI summary with a disclaimer already. I don't want companies to be forced to only offer safe-for-children services.

bergen 4mo ago
And the european consumer doesn't want harmful products to be beta tested on the public.
sham1 4mo ago
There is a disclaimer, yes, but you have to admit that it's pretty shit, innit? I mean for one, it's about the size of a human hair, and at least when I tried it, the disclaimer came up only when I clicked the "Show More" button. It might admittedly show up earlier if the response is shorter, admittedly I don't know. Also personally I'm a bit uneasy with the idea that just with a simple disclaimer they could avoid any and all liability. Not your argument, I know, but still. As for not wanting to force companies to release only "safe-for-children products", I do actually agree. However I consider it to be a matter of degree, and in this case for example, I think that if nothing else, Google should say the very least make the disclaimer a bit more prominent and maybe tweak the model so that it's not quite as confident in its claims in the AI Overview.
- gblargg 4mo ago
  Yeah, they could make it more prominent at the top. I would be fine if it said that "AI may give totally wrong answers" but that would never happen.
- ben_w 4mo ago
  > As for not wanting to force companies to release only "safe-for-children products", I do actually agree That would be nice, but as every effort to restrict kids from using software which are not safe-for-children keeps getting condemned for being invasive surveilence, and every effort to stop kids getting the hardware instead gets condemned because of how much of society is now built on assumption everyone has a phone… Something has to give. Dunno what, but something.
9dev 4mo ago
It's unbelievable how lightly some people hand over the tools for mass manipulation to a single corporation in the name of freedom of all things. We're not talking about a laser pointer here.
- soco 4mo ago
  Heck even laser pointers are regulated, now that we're thinking about it.