[dash2]

Notable features of this case:

- Documented record of a months-long set of conversations between the man and the chatbot

- Seemingly, no previous history of mental illness

- The absolutely crazy things the AI encouraged him to do, including trying to kidnap a robot body for the AI

- Eventually encouraging (or at the very least going along with) his plans to kill himself.

[WarmWash]

We would need to see the actual chat logs.

Any lawsuit you read, written by the plaintiff's attorneys, will be written with a tabloid level of sensationalism, cherry-picking, and "telling you how to feel". This is requested to be a jury trial, so on some level the game is "would you rather settle out of court (where hundreds of thousands are grains of sand on Google's level), or have a jury read our tabloid and decide while you, the faceless megacorporation, try to swim uphill against it."

[dash2]

But the WSJ did see the logs, right? So did they lower their standards to tabloid levels? Seems unlikely to me.

[WarmWash]

No, they are quoting the allegations made in the lawsuit.

[LoganDark]

To an extent, logs like this are incredibly personal - or at least I'd consider them such - so I'd understand if they're not being released publicly for many reasons relating to that.

The kind of vulnerability that shows when someone is susceptible to influences like this isn't exactly the kind of thing you'd want to widely publicize about someone you loved, you know?

[WarmWash]

Google will not release the chat logs publically, it's up to the court how to handle them, but the bar for "the public cannot see this" is generally much higher than "well that's embarrassing". If this goes to trial, they will most likely become available.

Remember that the idea of the court is to be public and transparent, with judgement coming from the jury, but also to be judged by society on the whole. So if you're gonna sue your kink provider, be prepared for everyone to know how you get off, because after all, the court is owned by, and serves, the public.

[neaden]

Yeah this seems as clear cut a case as you could want. That doesn't automatically mean Google is going to get held liable but if any case would result in it this one will.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Charles Manson never actually killed anyone. Why can't AI be held accountable for the same reasons?

[CaptWillard]

Because AI can't be held accountable. Ever.

That will probably save some jobs, but it's a problem in most other contexts.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Whoever provides the AI should be liable then.