The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict.
-
@david_chisnall quite frankliy, I wonder why they did it. I mean it's good for humanity but over the last years, google has demonstrated that that's a scale they don't particularly care for.
@DJGummikuh @david_chisnall "Google's lawyers" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here! As is always the case, there will be mutiple different law firms working for Google in different legal systems and jurisdictions, with different understandings of their customer's priorities and needs. Obviously somebody drafting that submission didn't realize that Google is an AI firm first, not an advertising firm or a search firm, and they were undermining their customers' highest priority.
-
@david_chisnall@infosec.exchange feels similar to when Fox claimed in court that no-one takes Tucker Carlson seriously and everyone watches him for entertainment only, and I don't think that had a major impact
Maybe the (economic) dynamics will be different in this case though@syn @david_chisnall Tucker Carlson is off of Fox now, although still doing the same shit somewhere. I would say that the distinction is that while there are loads of right-wing ideologue grifter types in his mold and millions of dollars for them, no one’s trying to prop up the entire economy on a shell game based around right-wing grifter personalities.
-
@DJGummikuh @david_chisnall "Google's lawyers" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here! As is always the case, there will be mutiple different law firms working for Google in different legal systems and jurisdictions, with different understandings of their customer's priorities and needs. Obviously somebody drafting that submission didn't realize that Google is an AI firm first, not an advertising firm or a search firm, and they were undermining their customers' highest priority.
@cstross @DJGummikuh @david_chisnall someone should give that lawyer a raise.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall Perhaps - although, how often are cars given agency in reports where a driver has run somebody over? The impression given generally is that the driver is somehow less culpable for their actions, or that an incident was an accident rather than a predictable result of negligent/incompetent/malicious humans at the controls of heavy machinery being operated alongside people.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
I doubt it'll make a difference.
To the best of my understanding, every terms of use of LLM-based tools comes with such a disclaimer already. Every chat interface has such a warning. Probably every contract a company signs with Google explicates that risk already.
That's not new, and I doubt it'll be cited.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
Time will tell if it has such an impact; personally, I'm skeptical.
But IMV the case will help to raise awareness how bad AI slop can be, and that AI companies don't give a flying f*** about it.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall This is a case where they are going to have to spend a lot of the next decade claiming the words are mistranslated and taken out of context in front of numerous judges all over the world. Something about AI keeps filling the heads of mediocre people with the notions that fighting when the facts go against them will play out well for them in court, see the Musk Vs Altman debacle, where all either really achieved was to provide ammunition for future legal cases.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall I suspect Google thought that the
CDA 230, and whatever the pressured 
into passing, covered their a**es. -
I doubt it'll make a difference.
To the best of my understanding, every terms of use of LLM-based tools comes with such a disclaimer already. Every chat interface has such a warning. Probably every contract a company signs with Google explicates that risk already.
That's not new, and I doubt it'll be cited.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, there are legal limits on what disclaimers of liability can do. If you advertise a product as 'Product that does X' and then have some small print saying 'product is incapable of doing X', this does not help you.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall «'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'»
Isn’t that more or less the stance of autonomous car producers? “Nonono, the human behind the wheel should •always• be prepared to take over in case of emergencies. You can’t expect the car to handle every situation.”?
-
@david_chisnall I suspect Google thought that the
CDA 230, and whatever the pressured into passing, covered their a**es.@TallSimon @david_chisnall Can you elaborate on your suspicions?
Very interesting stuff -
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall "Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality."
Ah yes, the advertisers' claim before truth in advertising laws were passed.
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall Sounds like the Fox News defense
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall LLMs can officially be called "The Tucker Carlson of facts" -
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall is it possible that the additional seemingly unnecessary claim has been made deliberately as a form of sabotage?
Other questions: Does this ruling only affect the summary? If so, is it only in the sense that it has appeared automatically without an option? Is the 'AI mode' covered in the same sense and subject to the same ruling generally?
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
-
@david_chisnall quite frankliy, I wonder why they did it. I mean it's good for humanity but over the last years, google has demonstrated that that's a scale they don't particularly care for.
@DJGummikuh @david_chisnall Wouldn't it be awesome to find out their lawyers used AI to draft the brief?? LOL
-
The interesting thing about the German court ruling against Google is not the verdict. The fact that, if you put libel on your web site, you are liable for it even if you used a machine to automatically generate libel, should not surprise anyone who has paid attention to the law at any point in the last century or so: humans have agency, the tools that they use do not shield them from liability, no matter how obfuscating they are.
The bit I suspect will have much more impact longer term is one of the defences entered by Google's lawyers. Somewhat more verbose in the original German, but it boiled down to: Everyone knows LLMs produce nonsense, no one should ever trust the output of an LLM in any situation that matters, it's not Google's fault if people read the output of an LLM and believed it might have some connection to reality.
It's debatable whether everyone knows that, but this is now an official statement entered into the court record that at least one of the major LLM vendors knows this. And that's now an on-the-record statement made under penalty of perjury that can be entered as evidence in any court case against companies selling LLM-integrated tooling.
I suspect that this will show up in a lot of court cases over the next few years and probably have a much bigger long-term impact than the ruling. Any claim about utility made by vendors of 'AI' tools is now open to lawsuits ranging from misleading advertising to outright fraud as a result of this.
Google would probably have been much better advised to settle the case rather than enter that claim as evidence. Imagine if a car manufacturer had entered a defence against liability in case of a collision by saying 'everyone knows automobiles are impossible to operate safely on the roads and anyone who buys one should know better than to take it on the public highway'. Google's lawyers have just done the equivalent for the 'AI' industry.
EDIT: It hopefully goes without saying, but just in case: I am not a lawyer, this is commentary from someone who watches the industry with a growing sense of disgust, not legal advice.
@david_chisnall Microsoft has a clause in their ToS that Copilot is for entertainment purposes only and that didn't really change things
-
@david_chisnall is it possible that the additional seemingly unnecessary claim has been made deliberately as a form of sabotage?
Other questions: Does this ruling only affect the summary? If so, is it only in the sense that it has appeared automatically without an option? Is the 'AI mode' covered in the same sense and subject to the same ruling generally?
is it possible that the additional seemingly unnecessary claim has been made deliberately as a form of sabotage?
It wasn't an additional unnecessary claim, it was a core defence idea: we are not liable because no one would expect our AI summary to actually be correct.
Does this ruling only affect the summary?
It affects text that Google ads that is not a direct quote from sources. If a source indexed by a search engine contains libellous statements, that source is liable but Google as an aggregator is not for linking to it.
If so, is it only in the sense that it has appeared automatically without an option?
If the text is generated by Google, Google is liable for anything that it includes that is illegal. If the text is not generated by Google and is simply indexed by Google then there is an existing exemption that says that the existence of web indexes is a public benefit and so Google is not liable.
-
@david_chisnall Microsoft has a clause in their ToS that Copilot is for entertainment purposes only and that didn't really change things
@robinsyl Yet. We'll see how well that holds up in court the first time someone loses money or reputation as a result of something Copilot does.
Fully employment for lawyers coming up!
