[Frieren]

How could anything else make any sense? Platforms are getting used to provide dangerous broken products and get away with it. There should be some limit to it.

Next do Amazon that is selling AI generated foraging books: - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/01/mushroom-...

When I was a kid it was possible to buy any foraging books from a store and they had a minimum quality. Is that so difficult to achieve? Is profiteering not punished anymore?

[TZubiri]

>How could anything else make any sense?

Well, they disclaimed and the user acknowledged

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-QaEB5eXSU Minute 3:00

[Ravus]

Disclaimers and user acceptance does not remove liability for slander, particularly against third parties.

In fact, in most EU countries "the user acknowledged" works only for a very small subset of stuff, precisely because our lawmakers know that the strong party in a contract would use that to get away from every legal obligation.

[Frieren]

Disclaimer: By reading this comment you accept to transfer all your properties to me, effective immediately.

Anyone can write a disclaimer, that does not make it enforceable.

[wat10000]

This is even worse, since the defamation in question is against a third party. This would be more like: by reading this comment, you transfer all of Bob's property to me.

[9dev]

Luckily it doesn't work like this in the EU.

[Robotbeat]

Should we hold scientists and journalists liable if they say false things or misrepresent things?

[FabCH]

We already do. Libel and fraud are already illegal.

[themafia]

If they do so knowingly, and harm is caused, then yes. Are you suggesting we should give them a pass from years of acquired jurisprudence simply because they hold a particular title?

And what institution gives out the licenses for journalists and scientists? Is it revokable?

[Robotbeat]

Do LLMs knowingly make mistakes?

Do we sue scientists for unintentional procedural errors?

[danaris]

This isn't about what the LLM knows. No one's trying to hold a computer liable.

This is about what Google knows.

And Google knows perfectly well that LLMs hallucinate all the time. They will provide incorrect information, confidently and often.

Which is why this whole article is explicitly about holding Google accountable.

[Robotbeat]

You honestly think Google is intentionally giving wrong answers??? Google would love to have a perfect oracle that never makes mistakes! Maybe German courts can conjure one up.

[danaris]

The choices are not between "perfect oracle that never makes mistakes" and "hallucinated AI overviews".

Google 100% has the choice not to include AI overviews. Which they know are often false.

It would mean egg on their face, to be sure, but would it even meaningfully impact revenue?

[novemp]

Yes, obviously.

[Robotbeat]

What if they just make a mistake, unintentionally?

[12_throw_away]

Publishing lies that were generated by the plausible-lie-generating-machine is a very intentional action, it's not a "mistake".

The legal profession uses the term "reckless disregard", see, e.g., [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

[Robotbeat]

It’s illegal to make factual errors. Wow, cool, I guess we solved science very easily!

[12_throw_away]

Might I suggest that X.com - "the everything app" - would be a better fit for your unique rhetorical style?

[Robotbeat]

…even unintentionally.

[atoav]

You don't?

[Robotbeat]

It’s in the nature of empirical reality that scientific measurements can be wrong.

[trumpdong]

The danger there is that the government will demand access to a journalists sources. "Leak reports Area 51 has aliens!" "Oh yeah? Prove who told you that or we'll arrest you for lying"

Or selectively. "Vaccines cause autism!" "Okay" "Vaccines don't cause autism!" "Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt or we'll arrest you for lying"

If we can solve these problems, then yes?