all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is a great way to handle it. Just let liability fall on on those responsible for the hazard. Your shitty AI just told some idiot to drink bleach? Your AI company is liable for the damages. Simple, effective.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Seems obvious to me! You made it, your liable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    It's not a just "you've made it" though.

    It's a "You push and shove it HARD down people's throat to the point it's almost the only thing they see now apart from ads".

    I remember accidentally searching through google once. The AI summary took half the page and there were a whopping 6 ads. Which is almost two pages of scrolling.

    So I don't blame users for taking the easy way out and just using the summary. Especially if they haven't heard of uBO + Firefox on mobile. Rawdogging the modern internet is terrible UX. Popups, autoplay, consent forms with a bajillion data "partners". And ads, ads and even more ads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Unusual German win. Now make it EU law.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    As it should be

  • source
  • 24 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 90 points 5 months ago

    Correct and common sense ruling. The tech broligarchs can't buy the judiciary in other countries like they do here in the US.

  • source
  • [–] 68 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Nice. Now, Google will probably just disable AI overview in germany cause they know they can't make it not spew made up crap. The hope's on more countries following suit on this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 63 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    As it should. Google is factually responsible for the resulting slop and should be legally responsible for it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    I hope for the one-two punch of:

    1. they're legally responsible for anything the slop machine says
    2. the slop is machine generated, so it isn't copyrightable

    Also, we got a third benefit if this ruling too. Google said, on the record, that it shouldn't be responsible because you can't trust anything that the slop-generator generates. Having that on the record could also be useful in a lot of other lawsuits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 105 points 5 months ago

    Wow that makes so much sense it’s crazy.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago

    Here's hoping it becomes a case cited in the whole EU.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago

    Seems fair to me. A search engine's whole purpose is to surface real information, not made up stuff.

    Its very different than a chat bot, which also needs better rules around it, but I'd definitely hold search to a higher standard.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Nice ;). Does that mean, I can sue them when I see a wrong answer?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Makes sense that if you use AI, it implies that what you put out using it, you've signed off on it.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago
    [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    This makes perfect sense. If you use AI to write a court document it has been set as precedence in multiple countries that the attorney signing the document is responsible for the content even if AI makes stuff up (which it does a lot).

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Well, I’m afraid that, unfortunately, this ruling will ultimately never be enforced, as it would make it impossible for the powerful multibillion-dollar corporations to operate this business.

    Another example of just how influential these corporations are is the fact that the most profitable piracy operation in history is even possible. Gigantic corporations of major influence have already filed multiple lawsuits over blatant intellectual property theft—yet even these players clearly stood no chance against the concentrated capital that is preventing the AI bubble from bursting immediately.

    Therefore: It is the right decision, but it will almost certainly remain without consequence.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Nah, it's like how they fined them hundreds of millions of euros because it was 2 clicks on YouTube to block cookies (the law required 1 click).

    The result was that EU visitors to YouTube got 1 click "deny all" button for cookies. Else they'd be fined over-and-over.

    The same will happen here. Google will remove AI summaries in Germany. And the German people will be less stupid because of it.

    Hopefully this spreads to the whole EU, and then other progressive countries too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I don’t think this can be handled as easily as with cookies or third-party connections that require consent, because Google apparently plans to eventually replace the traditional search engine results pages (SERPs) entirely with an AI chat interface.

    In that case, they would have to offer a completely different product just for Germany, or leave this market altogether. Neither option is likely to be viable for Google.

    Setting up the AI chat so that it doesn’t provide dangerous answers is, in my opinion, also out of the question, since this can never be guaranteed due to the way LLMs work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    If they did that, then they'll be fined constantly.

    The point is that they shouldn't be doing that. We, as a international community, need to make that illegal.

    And this is the first stone for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Yes, absolutely. I completely agree with you, but unfortunately, for the reasons mentioned, I still think it’s unlikely that this welcome ruling will have any real impact.

    Please don’t get me wrong. I’m just being realistic. This is by no means an argument against holding the tech giants accountable—we absolutely should!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    In that case, they would have to offer a completely different product just for Germany, or leave this market altogether. Neither option is likely to be viable for Google.

    Might be only Germany for the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if you see more jurisdictions ruling this way, e.g. there's a case in Canada at the moment where it claimed a musician was a sex offender.

    And locally, in Australia we don't have the US style "safe harbor" protections, so companies are already liable for content shown on their sites regardless of who creates it. If courts already won't accept "But somebody else wrote that" as a defence, they won't accept it when it's the companies own products producing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    "because it alone has influence over the AI's offering and the algorithms with which the AI operates."

    Okay so anything someone generates with the AI is owned by the company?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 8 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    [+] 25 points 5 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    "Chill bro, it's For Entertainment Purposes Only"

    but also....

    "we've created the world's most powerful disruptive technology ever known and it can out-think humans"

    kinda reminds me of the nonsense argument that immigrants are simultaneously extremely lazy but they're also somehow stealing everyone's jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago

    Can we add companies and law enforcement agencies that use facial recognition or LPDR that lead to the arrest and long term incarceration of people who are literally in a different state at the time of the crime? I heard of 3 so far who have lost homes, jobs, child custody, etc. These companies should literally pay restitution and to assist the individuals rebuild their lives.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago
    [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Great, liability is the only way to get them to care. I wonder how long it will take Google to threaten with pulling out of the EU.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 6 comments in c/ArtificialIgnorance@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 23 points 5 months ago

    The court treated the AI overviews as Google's own content and rejected Google's argument that users were responsible for fact-checking the results themselves.

    Ah yes we'll force feed you info as the first thing but you're responsible for checking it. What a plan.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    I absolutely love seeing these types of rulings. Y'all want the stochastic AI to run all these things be prepared to be legally on the hook for the shit it does and says.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child)

    this is an LLM killer for germany, this will force compnays to not rely on these buggy POS until it at least operates reliably. or risk lawsuit as people fish for reasons to sue using the chat bot.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    Easy fix. Google just needs to prompt their AI with "make no mistakes".

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    If stupid corporations want to have the same rights as humans then they should be bound by the same laws.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 21 points 5 months ago

    The real story: how much are they going to have to pay, to whom, to make this go away?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    That´s the way to go with this nonsense, make them pay. I wrote about related here: https://medium.com/@klaudibregu/google-greedy-gets-karma-8aebeeb89bcb

    It took minutes to ban my account from reddit with it :))

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/technology@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    Good. The argument that they can’t control what is said is just asinine. They have the ultimate option, turn it the fuck off.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/Technology@programming.dev view that post
    1 comment in c/google@lemdro.id view that post