Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations.

A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
75 Indlæg 53 Posters 1 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • timotimo@peoplemaking.gamesT timotimo@peoplemaking.games

    @iamlayer8 @tante "Google AI Overview is for Entertainment Purposes Only" just like ... was it copilot that had this in the terms of use or whatever?

    iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
    iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
    iamlayer8@mastodon.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #13

    @timotimo
    It should be flagged as AI Slop - on screen, mandated by law.
    Then they can re-define what that means by delivering correct information. And in 5 years we will use #AISlop as an indicator of high quality content.

    @tante

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • tante@tldr.nettime.orgT tante@tldr.nettime.org

      A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations. This is an important step to bring "AI" slop in line with all other products on the market: "AI" products are basically the only ones where a provider can just deliver unchecked garbage and put all the liability on the consumer. I hope to see aggressive change here.

      https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

      david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
      david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD This user is from outside of this forum
      david_chisnall@infosec.exchange
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #14

      @tante

      Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

      Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

      That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

      lobingera@chaos.socialL c0dec0dec0de@hachyderm.ioC ozzelot@mstdn.socialO rdp@notpickard.comR mizkirsten@mastodon.socialM 20 Replies Last reply
      1
      0
      • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

        @tante

        Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

        Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

        That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

        lobingera@chaos.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
        lobingera@chaos.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
        lobingera@chaos.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #15

        @david_chisnall @tante

        iirc, Google said that earlier about their search results, also.

        markotway@mastodonapp.ukM 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • mjack@mastodon.bsd.cafeM mjack@mastodon.bsd.cafe shared this topic
        • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

          @tante

          Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

          Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

          That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

          c0dec0dec0de@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
          c0dec0dec0de@hachyderm.ioC This user is from outside of this forum
          c0dec0dec0de@hachyderm.io
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #16

          @david_chisnall @tante this is also known as the Fox “News” defense for those in the US

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

            @tante

            Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

            Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

            That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

            ozzelot@mstdn.socialO This user is from outside of this forum
            ozzelot@mstdn.socialO This user is from outside of this forum
            ozzelot@mstdn.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #17

            @david_chisnall
            Imagine TI saying that about their calculators.
            @tante

            iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

              @tante

              Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

              Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

              That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

              rdp@notpickard.comR This user is from outside of this forum
              rdp@notpickard.comR This user is from outside of this forum
              rdp@notpickard.com
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #18

              @david_chisnall @tante cigarettes?

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • lobingera@chaos.socialL lobingera@chaos.social

                @david_chisnall @tante

                iirc, Google said that earlier about their search results, also.

                markotway@mastodonapp.ukM This user is from outside of this forum
                markotway@mastodonapp.ukM This user is from outside of this forum
                markotway@mastodonapp.uk
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #19

                @lobingera
                Slightly different. "search results you see may not be the most relevant for your query" is very different to "We're providing actual information which has a reasonably likelihood of being wrong, and potentially dangerously wrong".
                @david_chisnall @tante

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                  @tante

                  Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                  Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                  That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                  mizkirsten@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mizkirsten@mastodon.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                  mizkirsten@mastodon.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #20

                  @david_chisnall @tante

                  What's the difference between an LLM and a pack of cigarettes?

                  They both fill the room with smoke that will eventually kill someone. But cigarettes come with a warning.

                  iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                    @tante

                    Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                    Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                    That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                    robotistry@fediscience.orgR This user is from outside of this forum
                    robotistry@fediscience.orgR This user is from outside of this forum
                    robotistry@fediscience.org
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #21

                    @david_chisnall @tante Remember when Intel released a chip with a built in floating point math error that happened one nine-billionth of the time?

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                      @tante

                      Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                      Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                      That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                      jernej__s@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jernej__s@infosec.exchangeJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jernej__s@infosec.exchange
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #22

                      @david_chisnall @tante Don't forget that Copilot is for entertainment purposes only, too.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                        @tante

                        Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                        Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                        That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                        nukleos@mendeddrum.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                        nukleos@mendeddrum.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                        nukleos@mendeddrum.org
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #23

                        @david_chisnall

                        @tante

                        I know a few people who won´t like this admission from Google: "the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and users should know that" !!

                        Will OpenAI e.a. admit the same thing?

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                          @tante

                          Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                          Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                          That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                          sebastian@mastodon.ccS This user is from outside of this forum
                          sebastian@mastodon.ccS This user is from outside of this forum
                          sebastian@mastodon.cc
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #24

                          @david_chisnall @tante

                          Indeed no other industry or product could get away with that ... - let us just hope that this court's view is upheld through future instances

                          eestileib@tech.lgbtE sebastian@social.itu.dkS 2 Replies Last reply
                          0
                          • sebastian@social.itu.dkS sebastian@social.itu.dk shared this topic
                          • ozzelot@mstdn.socialO ozzelot@mstdn.social

                            @david_chisnall
                            Imagine TI saying that about their calculators.
                            @tante

                            iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
                            iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
                            iamlayer8@mastodon.social
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #25

                            @ozzelot
                            I remember Microsoft successfully lobbying to keep known faulty behavior like handling the year 1900 as a leap year in the OOXML standard.

                            So that idea is not that far off for me.

                            @david_chisnall @tante

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • mizkirsten@mastodon.socialM mizkirsten@mastodon.social

                              @david_chisnall @tante

                              What's the difference between an LLM and a pack of cigarettes?

                              They both fill the room with smoke that will eventually kill someone. But cigarettes come with a warning.

                              iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
                              iamlayer8@mastodon.socialI This user is from outside of this forum
                              iamlayer8@mastodon.social
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #26

                              @mizkirsten
                              Finally

                              @david_chisnall @tante

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • tante@tldr.nettime.orgT tante@tldr.nettime.org

                                A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations. This is an important step to bring "AI" slop in line with all other products on the market: "AI" products are basically the only ones where a provider can just deliver unchecked garbage and put all the liability on the consumer. I hope to see aggressive change here.

                                https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

                                xs4me2@mastodon.socialX This user is from outside of this forum
                                xs4me2@mastodon.socialX This user is from outside of this forum
                                xs4me2@mastodon.social
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #27

                                @tante

                                Excellent verdict, actions have consequences…

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • tante@tldr.nettime.orgT tante@tldr.nettime.org

                                  A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations. This is an important step to bring "AI" slop in line with all other products on the market: "AI" products are basically the only ones where a provider can just deliver unchecked garbage and put all the liability on the consumer. I hope to see aggressive change here.

                                  https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

                                  perrynoid@defcon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                                  perrynoid@defcon.socialP This user is from outside of this forum
                                  perrynoid@defcon.social
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #28

                                  @tante

                                  Hallucinations aren't Google's fault, and they can't just fix them. It's a property of AI. So just don't use it for topics you don't understand. And frankly, I don't know anyone who still uses Google. Even my mom uses DuckDuckGo.

                                  landa@graz.socialL 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                                    @tante

                                    Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                                    Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                                    That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                                    edavies@functional.cafeE This user is from outside of this forum
                                    edavies@functional.cafeE This user is from outside of this forum
                                    edavies@functional.cafe
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #29

                                    @david_chisnall Don't most software licences, particularly FOSS ones, say that?

                                    @tante

                                    david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • david_chisnall@infosec.exchangeD david_chisnall@infosec.exchange

                                      @tante

                                      Google's defence needs to be amplified by anyone talking to politicians about 'AI' regulation:

                                      Google is explicitly saying in their legal filing that the outputs from their LLM should not be trusted and that users should know that.

                                      That's one hell of an admission. Imagine saying that about any other category of product.

                                      lymphomation@mastodon.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
                                      lymphomation@mastodon.socialL This user is from outside of this forum
                                      lymphomation@mastodon.social
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #30

                                      @david_chisnall @tante I see nothing shocking in that admission. AI abilities are jagged - in some areas exceptional (radiology) and in other prone to error. Like any human.

                                      The key to judging its veracity is based on the strength of the citations it provides and what other sources are saying about the questions we ask of it.

                                      sabik@rants.auS 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • tante@tldr.nettime.orgT tante@tldr.nettime.org

                                        A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations. This is an important step to bring "AI" slop in line with all other products on the market: "AI" products are basically the only ones where a provider can just deliver unchecked garbage and put all the liability on the consumer. I hope to see aggressive change here.

                                        https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

                                        bernardoblf@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                                        bernardoblf@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                                        bernardoblf@mastodon.social
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #31

                                        @tante
                                        **A historical and necessary decision.** Holding companies accountable for AI "hallucinations" brings technology closer to the real world, where every product needs quality control and safety. Consumers shouldn't bear the burden of filtering out others' mistakes. Here's to responsible evolution!
                                        🦁🦁🦁

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • tante@tldr.nettime.orgT tante@tldr.nettime.org

                                          A court in Munich declared that Google is liable for their "AI summaries" and all its hallucinations. This is an important step to bring "AI" slop in line with all other products on the market: "AI" products are basically the only ones where a provider can just deliver unchecked garbage and put all the liability on the consumer. I hope to see aggressive change here.

                                          https://the-decoder.com/landmark-german-ruling-declares-googles-ai-overviews-are-googles-own-words-and-makes-it-liable-for-false-answers/

                                          ax11@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                                          ax11@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                                          ax11@mastodon.social
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #32

                                          @tante the solution is on the way: fusion powered quantum ai. Invest now before everyone else does!

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper