[zkmon]

The confusion is due to blurring of distinction between the roles: Tool, Tool user and Tool provider. Traditionally, a human-agent who can have an intent and trigger an action is held liable for the consequences of the actions, not the tool. That human agent can be the tool user or tool provider.

Tool user is liable in the case of misuse unintended purpose of the tool.

Tool provider is liable when the use of the tool, by design, causes unintended effects despite proper use of the tool.

A simple "AI may make mistakes" line under the box will not help while the box contains false information. The specific information (lines or words) should not be provided if that's a mistake of false.

[pnt12]

The article shows a really good point: statements must be accountable on their own, and cannot rely on "further research". This makes complete sense: at what point can I libel someone, and then dodge consequences with "if you do your research, you can get the facts"?

Another point from the article: they are not just aggregating content, but generating it. If you generate falsehoods, that are not even stated by your sources, of course you're responsible.

This can have significant impact to AI in Germany and the rest of Europe, but it's good to question it and hold people accountable.