[heathrow83829]

at the scale that google is at, it doesn't make an ounce of sense to hold a company liable for a potential mistruth. what if there's a 1/1000 chance of some error, then the company could be sued millions of times per day.

down vote all you want, but I firmly believe this is an example where the user needs to use some judgement on the information they receive and have some critical thinking skills. google would be right to remove all AI results from germany.

[pdpi]

If I post “heathrow83829 is a convicted poopoo head” (replace with your favourite crime) as if it were a factual claim, you’d be well within your rights to sue me for defamation even if people should apply some critical thinking skills and say “wait a minute, how would pdpi know that? Are you sure he isn’t just talking out of his arse?”

Now, search engines are usually afforded some amount of protection against defamation claims — they’re not held liable for simply indexing and quoting third party defamatory claims. Which is to say: Google wouldn’t be liable for claiming you’re a poopoo head if this comment shows up in search results.

The point of this ruling is that AI-generated text isn’t a quote from a third party, it’s text generated by Google’s own tools, so it’s speech by Google itself. It might be wrong, sure, but it’s still presented as a statement of fact.

At trial they can have the whole debate about whether Google was negligent in how they build their systems, and all that jazz, but let’s be clear here — it’s not a matter of every little factual mistake getting Google sued (and that would be absolutely terrifying from a freedom of speech perspective), but rather that the technical means by which you generate content doesn’t change your liability in publishing that content.

[hunterpayne]

The other big point is that some people treat LLMs as if they are truth. We all know that they get a lot wrong, a lot of the time. Yesterday I watch both Elon post something somewhere between badly worded and wrong and another user used Grok to "prove him wrong", but this time being completely wrong in a different way. And this was a matter of law which can be looked up. Anything within throwing distance of politics won't be considered "correct" by everyone ever. Just defining "correct" is harder than it sounds and that probably isn't possible in reality.

[watwut]

I see people claiming LLM are trustworthy on HN all the time.

It is not just some people, it is a lot of people insode the tech itself pushing the "trustworthy" claim.

[sumeno]

Yeah, it would take me about 15 minutes to find several examples of people on HN claiming hallucinations are a solved problem

[Hugsbox]

We don't all know they get it wrong a lot. In fact, there's an overwhelming number of people who take it at face value

[michaellee8]

I think Google added that AI-generated responses maybe incorrect? When you are paying such a low amount of cost, like probably for free, I don't think you can expect a same level of quality as a human written or reviewed of answer. It is like same random user spin up their Lovable and vibe-coded a piece of slop and hold Lovable responsible for not giving them production quality code. It is simple, you get what you paid for. If someone actually figured out AI that is actually always correct, it would be charged in superhuman price as well.

[pdpi]

This case isn’t about Google’s users getting low-quality search results. As you say, you get what you pay for. The actual issue is that, in some searches, the AI summaries would claim the plaintiffs were guilty of scams and all-around shady business practices.

Put differently: it’s not newspaper readers complaining the paper is inaccurate, it’s the people mentioned in the articles.

[thfuran]

You’re seriously arguing that Google’s libel shouldn’t count as libel because they showed it to too many people? It’s absolutely insane to suggest that a company should be immune from liability for its actions if it operates on such scale that those actions harm millions of people every day on the basis that dealing with that many lawsuits would be too inconvenient.

[8note]

its not inaccurate though.

consider Purdue pharma - the Sacklers got off with all their wealth intact because they were too big to sue and properly collect money for their victims.

[oaiey]

But we agree that this was also wrong, right?

[account42]

Yeah its wild to see people actually using "kill a million people and its a statistic" as a defense rather than to point out injustice.

[drawfloat]

No they got away with it through a combination of lax pharmaceutical laws, and because they were rich and connected to the officials who should have investigated them.

They're also almost universally regarded as having committed evil acts at this point, so who cares why they got away with it?

[intended]

Just because someone got away with it means everyone should get away with it ?

[drstewart]

Exactly, it's like saying Wikipedia shouldn't be liable and immediately shut down for any wrong information shown on it.

[wasmitnetzen]

Wikipedia doesn't have to shut down, but they have to remove the libel.

The problem for LLMs is that they do not learn, and can't be prevented to produce that libel ever again. If Google finds a way to make that happen, no court would stop them from offering an LLM.

[thfuran]

The court isn’t stopping them from offering an LLM, it’s saying that serving the output of its LLM is, in this sense, equivalent to serving the output of a human writer they hired. That is, it is Google’s speech and they are directly liable for it, unlike when they’re just serving search results that are somebody else’s speech.

[em-bee]

the user needs to use some judgement on the information they receive and have some critical thinking skills

how?

errors can be so subtle that it is not possible to recognize them unless you spend an hour researching every fact presented. at that point, what's the benefit of AI? nobody is going to do that.

google would be right to remove all AI results from germany

i'd consider that a win.

[SllX]

By checking the citations rather than taking what’s generated at face value.

If it’s important, check it. If it’s not important, then it is pretty much just entertainment.

LLMs can be very useful in a general web search and save some time, but if you don’t put those literacy & critical thinking skills to the test and actually confirm anything, then you might as well not even have bothered with the search at all unless you’re hoping it can just replace all of your original thinking too.

[Gigachad]

If google didn't intend it's answers to be taken at face value it would just present the citations in a list of links rather than generating an answer.

Obviously the marketing point of the AI tools is it just gives you an answer straight up so you don't have to bother reading normal sources.

[SllX]

The AI summary is still useful for narrowing down the results, even if you fully check the citations.

> Obviously the marketing point of the AI tools is it just gives you an answer straight up so you don't have to bother reading normal sources.

To lazy people yes. That would be a marketing point. It’s not that though, so you use it to save time, but you don’t get to skip the verification step.

[Gigachad]

Google should not be publishing a statement that they haven't verified. This is different to listing search results links, they are the ones publishing the content here.

A journalist could not make up a harmful statement about someone and get away by saying the readers should have all read the sources. AI companies want to take all the benefits and profits, while holding none of the liability and responsibility for the harms they are causing.

[hunterpayne]

"A journalist could not make up a harmful statement about someone and get away by saying the readers should have all read the sources."

Journalists do that all the time. We even have a whole collection of words to describe it. Muckraking for instance is probably about 100 years old. Its even in the Google auto-complete in the browser I am posting from.

[intended]

Absolutely not.

LLMs are, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of outsourced workers.

Google created a summary, not just sharing search results.

Google is responsible for the output it created and then published.

If they had only surfaced search results, then they would not be liable for what other people generated.

Google’s scale does not protect it from this liability.

[clort]

If you re-read the article, you might see that it mentions that the citations do not necessarily cover the AI summary. The linked pages do not make the claims that the AI summary makes. That is the context of the ruling. Google made up the claims, and provided false citations. They are not, in fact, providing a summary, but a whole new narrative. Therefore they own it.

[SllX]

I read the article and I’m aware of the failure modes of Google’s AI summary. They’re actually one of the worst in the space on this shit which is why I don’t use Gemini and it’s fine that they get slapped for this, but what I was responding to initially was this:

> errors can be so subtle that it is not possible to recognize them unless you spend an hour researching every fact presented. at that point, what's the benefit of AI? nobody is going to do that.

Because if someone goes through the citations and it doesn’t substantiate what was generated, then what was generated was obviously bollocks. Being able to recognize those contradictions is an essential skill to using LLMs with web search at all. It’s not rocket science.

[danaris]

> Being able to recognize those contradictions is an essential skill

My eyes are brown.

I dislike coffee.

My phone is on the desk next to me right now.

One of these is false, and the other two are true. Can you recognise which is which? Or do you not have this "essential skill"?

When you're being given information about a topic you don't already know about, there's no skill to be able to recognise which pieces of that information are correct and which aren't. Either you know the information already, or you don't.

[em-bee]

nobody has that skill. in order to recognize a contradiction you have to already know something contradictory. if you don't then you can't recognize anything. the only other reason to make you check is that you are very suspicious of this AI thing. you and me are, but who else is? you can repeat a thousand times that people should not trust an AI summary and they will not get it. they have neither the motivation nor the energy to do that research.

it's like saying people should not use a computer if they don't know how to keep it secure.

you have to look at the reality, which is that people are not educated or critical enough to use AI safely. and that misinformation can cause people to get killed.

just yesterday there was a post about a man being falsely accused of a crime by AI tools and losing his job and his family as a consequence.

these mistakes destroy lives, and most people are far to trusting to use AI tools safely

[broken-kebab]

Important for whom exactly? If it's you who are called convicted pedo by Google AI summary, it's you who has vital interest in additional research but not me who reads it. There's intentions mismatch. Which probably would destroy your life, and you won't call it "entertainment" then, I think.

[SllX]

Strawmen are for scaring off the crows, not discussion fodder. Take it out to the farm where it belongs.

[broken-kebab]

Could you elaborate what in my thesis of intentions mismatch makes you think it is not a valid argument?

[oaiey]

But you are not doing a 2 hour rabbit hole search when you stand in front of a T-shirt and check whether it is fair traded or all-american produced.

[SllX]

If those are things you legitimately care about before you spend one penny on a T-Shirt, then you are. Or you did your research before hand. Or you’re just not buying the T-Shirt.

Or you don’t care about those things at all, and you will buy the T-Shirt that’s in front of you right now rather than wait later and buy one that better reflects your supposed values when you’ve done an appropriate amount of research. Using AI may even reduce the amount of time you spend on that part.

Your T-Shirt buying patterns & values are not my concern though.

[isaacfrond]

You are confusing who is the party that is injured--as many in this thread are. We are not talking about the consumer who buys a non-fairtrade t-shirt, when he would rather had a fairtrade one. It's about the t-shirt producers who is legitimately fairtrade but whose business is now in the shitter because of a lying AI.

[SllX]

LLMs can’t lie. They are incapable of telling either the truth or lying. To the extent that they are in any way useful, it’s recognizing that they are text generators attached to crawlers and other tools that can with the right inputs produce useful generated text that may also incidentally be correct or incorrect.

Businesses might (well, will) suffer because people are misusing AI, but it is a misuse to do anything with it without an additional verification step.

To be clear here, I have no issue with Google taking it on the chin in cases like this, but what the comment I was originally responding to had this:

> errors can be so subtle that it is not possible to recognize them unless you spend an hour researching every fact presented. at that point, what's the benefit of AI? nobody is going to do that.

And my point is this: if it matters, verification is not optional. If it doesn’t matter, then fine, skip the verification step, but if you’re taking whatever text is generated by a GPT at face value without understanding what that is or being able to determine the source inputs for the “claims” it outputs, then you’re part of the problem because sometimes the source is just a GPT-generated web page, and that’s obviously not trustworthy. Sometimes it’s a MediaWiki site page that doesn’t actually exist, but because it’s MediaWiki it’s not going to return a 404. Using a tool requires understanding it including its failure modes, and in the case of LLMs that means: trust nothing, verify everything.

[gmerc]

So scale of harm creates immunity, is that the argument ?

[necovek]

Did we not already see that with the financial sector in 2008?

[intended]

Sort of ?

Either way, we do not want a repeat of that.

Plus too big to fail as a US malaise, that then toppled the rest of the economy.

The EU is taking steps to prevent that, so this is laudable.

[drfloyd51]

Too big to fail. Lol.

[Swizec]

> at the scale that google is at, it doesn't make an ounce of sense to hold a company liable for a potential mistruth

If a Google employee (like a support agent) says a mistruth, the company is liable and you can sue. They can’t just say “hihi oopsies our support agents are useless”

[globular-toast]

I'm seeing this sentiment more and more these days and it's worrying. Essentially people are starting to believe massive corporations should be able to get away with more than individuals. This is completely backwards considering the enormous impact a corporation can have, but that's what people are starting to think. I've heard people argue that corporations should be able to straight up lie and deceive to protect themselves, which is something you would not accept from a person.

[autoexec]

It's probably got something to do with the billions/trillions of dollars corporations and industries have to push their chosen narrative onto an uneducated public. They've successfully turned a lot of people into suckers.

[f33d5173]

Corporations are you. Corporations provide a service to individuals, often in exchange for money. Restricting corporations from doing something is the same as restricting people from receiving that as a service.

[account42]

I guess we're all just temporarily confused FAANGs.

[f33d5173]

Banning faangs from doing something also bans small companies from doing it, and regardless prevents the user from receiving it as a service. You shouldn't let anger at large companies excuse stupid regulations.

[danaris]

There's no reason this has to be the case.

It's entirely possible for legislatures to attach clauses to restrictions that make them only apply to businesses above 50 employees, or above $1M ARR, or whatever.

[thisisit]

Google can be reasonably expected to not push pirated content to top if someone is searching for the “big hit music download” because they might be held liable for helping people with illegal downloads. But they shouldn’t be liable for misleading people? Being sued for billions of dollars by corporations vs millions by common folks is the difference

[Gigachad]

There's also a difference between search engine results and this. Google is publishing their own text with false claims, not linking to another page that hosts it.

[BigTTYGothGF]

> at the scale that google is at, it doesn't make an ounce of sense to hold a company liable for a potential mistruth

I, too, agree that google is too large and should be broken up into multiple smaller companies.

[morkalork]

How do you feel about the EPA, industrial accidents, oil spills etc? Does scale give every company a free pass for damages?

[bulbar]

That's not a fair comparison. If oil companies would get sued for every leak, they had to face millions of law suites and wouldn't be competitive anymore.

(Sarcasm to support your argument)

[account42]

Should google also be allowed to assasinate a couple of people per day due to their scale? If they can't manage liability at their scale they they should scale down.

[Pay08]

Then Google can either discontinue their AI or make damn sure it's good.

[OtomotO]

So once you get to that scale it suddenly doesn't matter anymore and you can't be held accountable.

But until then, be a good citizen?

What? That's fucking feudalism... Peasants and Lords.

If you're lucky enough, you're born as a Lord. (And maybe don't live during a revolution)

This makes no sense to me at all. If you're small you should get less bureaucracy than if you're bigger.

For e.g. self driving cars there should not be any exemptions. There are people's lives at stake, people who didn't sign up for your shitty service.

[silversmith]

Hang on, so you are arguing that responsibility for your product is just a phase you grow out of as a company?

[dabinat]

I don’t know if critical thinking comes into it. If Google tells me “Company X is a terrible company that cheats its customers”, I don’t automatically know that’s false. It could very well be true. If I’ve got to look at the rest of the search results to figure that out anyway, what’s the point of the AI summary?

[lynx97]

> google would be right to remove all AI results from germany.

As others already said, that would be a great outcome, and german citizens would benefit.

It is a search engine. It used to have decent excerpts. It doesn't need hallucinated generative AI summaries. I am about to click the link anyway.

[kevinxsun]

At the scale that google is at, is the exact the reason they need to be hold accountable for any misconduct because the impact is so big. If google just display third party content only, then yes, users need to use their own judgement. But if google itself generate content instead and put out claims, due to it's scale and reputation, those content needs to be true because most of the people put trust in Google, so any untrue or false information especially defame others, Google is 100% liable, period. You clearly don't have the clear mind or mental capacity to analyze this situation, probably very slow.

[NegativeK]

Only referencing America, but professional liability for doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc isn't based on perfection. It's based on a reasonable effort.

So Google could, for example, switch from a tiny "this could be wrong!" byline to having the AI be less overconfident every freaking time regardless of whether it's spouting made up crap or actual facts.

The scale doesn't sound like a way out. If your company expects to get away with doing the wrong thing where smaller companies can't, then the solution isn't to continue getting away with it.

[cik]

The problem with "the user" argument is the spectrum of users. There are different skills, capabilities, and intelligence. Frequently we wave our hands and say exactly this, critical thinking. But, not everyone is capable of that, nor is everyone capable to the same degree.

As a society we decide. Are we embracing all users, are there basic rights and assunptions? Do we only enable some?

As a free (as in cost to end user) system, Germany is arguing that their social compact raises the mininum bar. Frankly, thus might help drive a rush to increased accuracy for AI- tech finds a way. Equally it may hinder - beaurocracy creates barriers.

I'd love to be able to rely on these search results. I see them ad the same prior set of inaccuracies whereby I have to do more research. At least now there's a summary and direct links to the supporting information. But equally, we're primed with the information in the summary.

[autoexec]

> Frequently we wave our hands and say exactly this, critical thinking. But, not everyone is capable of that, nor is everyone capable to the same degree.

It doesn't help that there have been active efforts for decades to prevent people from learning and developing critical thinking skills.

We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority. - The 2012 Texas Republican Party Platform (saying the quiet part out loud)

[cik]

> It doesn't help that there have been active efforts for decades to prevent people from learning and developing critical thinking skills.

This very much depends on where you live between state (US), and countries. Where I live, it's the complete reverse, critical thinking is baked into the population, into learning, into nigh everything. Our challenge is the complete lack of privacy, sadly.

[skeptic_ai]

So if I make a script to spam everywhere with 0.1% odds that is fake I can’t be sued? Just because I spam millions of times per day means I shouldn’t be liable for what I do right? But someone saying one time should go to prison. Makes sense /s