[Squeeze2664]

This seems so backwards to me. As a user of LLMs, it's clear to me that tokens generated by ChatGPT and similar are not to be interpreted as a legally-valid statement by the company making the LLMs, unless explicitly stated by said company. I certainly don't engage with them that way. I believe this to be fairly obvious to anyone who has used such tools, so I just see this as an opportunity to sue for a quick buck.

[stavros]

NOYB doesn't make money out of suing. I otherwise agree with the rest of your comment.

[Squeeze2664]

I just looked into what noyb is, thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps this is something that had to be brought to court at one point or another, so we can set a precedent one way or the other, then. At the moment I think I'm hoping nothing comes out of this.

[stavros]

Yeah, me too, and I have a recurring donation to NOYB, as they generally do fantastic work. I think this one is a rare miss.

[latexr]

> I believe this to be fairly obvious to anyone who has used such tools

It is not. Not even people in tech understand this, let alone non-technical people. These tools are being marketed as a way to get factual information. Don’t let your knowledge of the technology blind you to the fact that people outside your circle don’t know what you do.

[BlackFly]

Are the statements by the neighbourhood drunk in the corner pub commonly interpreted as legally valid statements by the individual making them? Nobody takes the drunk seriously, yet the neighbourhood drunk shouldn't be treated more seriously with respect to slander than a large corporation with respect to libel.