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. 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.
-
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.
@tante wow, I hope this holds up.
-
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.
@tante
I also hope they don't say "chatbots can make mistakes", because epistemologically, they cannot. They do not pursue trueness. -
@tante wow, I hope this holds up.
@tante also, how would the "do your fact checking yourself"-approach work at all once the plan to eliminate links is enacted? Maybe making your bullshit all that transparent isn't the best move.
-
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.
@tante
They could flag it as comedy or satire -
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.
@tante This is getting really interesting. First the chatbots and now the "Ai search results". The faulty design starts to show and become useless if they can get sued for every misinformation. It will be easier to train humans for this jobs, at least you can yell at them when the fuck up
-
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.
@tante ”A German court has ruled that Google is directly liable for what its AI search overviews say. Previous case law shielding search engine operators from liability doesn't apply to AI overviews.”
This is the correct action to take. You are operating a technology that produces this information. You are not connecting people to somebody else’s voice.
-
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.
Just wanted to look for my SPIEGEL pictures of Nazi Klar, pissed at a demo.
It was a short while ago after he was caught.google answered that I am not a RAF terrorist.
Do I get compensation?
[de]
-
Just wanted to look for my SPIEGEL pictures of Nazi Klar, pissed at a demo.
It was a short while ago after he was caught.google answered that I am not a RAF terrorist.
Do I get compensation?
[de]
@sl007 "helpful"
-
@sl007 "helpful"
yeah, "helpful" was a month before when it showed me the image I searched for.
This search returned 0 results and 3 wrong connections
-
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
-
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.
@tante This is the kind of thing I couldn't have come up with, because I would never have considered what the LLM is spitting out to be Google's words.
Guess there is no real way out. They get what they wanted and I isn't legally theft (however incompetent)... but now it's their words so guess they are responsible.
Look forward to how they try to fight this one. Sorry it's not our words, we actually stole the entirety of human creation.
-
@tante
They could flag it as comedy or satire@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 @tante "Google AI Overview is for Entertainment Purposes Only" just like ... was it copilot that had this in the terms of use or whatever?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
iirc, Google said that earlier about their search results, also.
-
M mjack@mastodon.bsd.cafe shared this topic
-
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.
@david_chisnall @tante this is also known as the Fox “News” defense for those in the US
-
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.
@david_chisnall
Imagine TI saying that about their calculators.
@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.
@david_chisnall @tante cigarettes?
-
iirc, Google said that earlier about their search results, also.
@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 -
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.
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.
