|
|
|
|
|
|
by JamesSwift
1 day ago
|
|
|
Look... its clear you didnt read the article. The point of contention is that google _hallucinated_ facts. As in, website 1 said company A exists and website 2 said company B committed a crime and now googles AI summary says company A committed a crime while linking website 1 and 2. The court found google to be liable for that, because company A has no other recourse otherwise. Which website operator was the company supposed to contact to remove this "false" information? It only exists in the aether of google search results, and only as a side effect of them adding functionality into that when someone is searching. |
|
|