So you don’t think these massive megacompanies should be held responsible for making disinformation machines? Why not?
Comment on A courts reporter wrote about a few trials. Then an AI decided he was actually the culprit.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 month agoI don’t think they should be liable for what their text generator generates. I think people should stop treating it like gospel. At most, they should be liable for misrepresenting what it can do.
TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 month ago
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 month ago
because when you provide computer code for money you don’t want there to be any liability assigned
medgremlin@midwest.social 1 month ago
Which is why, in many cases, there should be liability assigned. If a self-driving car kills someone, the programming of the car is at least partially to blame, and the company that made it should be liable for the wrongful death suit, and probably for criminal charges as well. Citizens United already determined that corporations are people…now we just need to put a corporation in prison for their crimes.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
If a self-driving car kills someone, the programming of the car is at least partially to blame
No, it is not. It is the use to which the system has been put that is the point at which blame can be assigned. That is what should be verified and validated. That’s where some person is signing on the dotted line that the system is fit for use for that particular purpose.
I can write a simplistic algorithm to guide a toy drone autonomously. So let’s say I GPL it. If an airplane manufacturer then drops that code into an airliner, and fail to test it correctly in scenarios resembling real=life use of that plane, they’re the ones who fucked up, not me.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
No liability should apply while coding. When that code is deployed for use, there should be liability if it is unfit for its intended use. If your AI falsely denies my insurance claim, your ass should be on the line.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yeah, all these systems do is worsen the already bad signal/noise ratio in online discourse.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I want them to have more warnings and disclaimers than a pack of cigarettes. Make sure the users are very much aware they can’t trust anything it says.
Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If they aren’t liable for what their product does, who is? And do you think they’ll be incentivized to fix their glorified chat boxes if they know they won’t be held responsible for if?
lunarul@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Their product doesn’t claim to be a source of facts. It’s a generator of human-sounding text. It’s great for that purpose and they’re not liable for people misusing it or not understanding what it does.
Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So you think these compilations should have no liability for the misinformation they spit out. Awesome. That’s gonna end well. Welcome to digital snake oil, y’all.
lunarul@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I did not say companies should have no liability for publishing misinformation. Of course if someone uses AI to generate misinformation and tries to pass it off as factual information they should be held accountable. But it doesn’t seem like anyone did that in this case. Just a journalist putting his name in the AI to see what it generates. Nobody actually spread those results as fact.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
If they aren’t liable for what their product does, who is?
The users who claim it’s fit for the purpose they are using it for. Now if the manufacturers themselves are making dodgy claims, that should stick to them too.
kibiz0r@midwest.social 1 month ago
If we’ve learned any lesson from the internet, it’s that once something exists it never goes away.
Sure, people shouldn’t believe the output of their prompt. But if you’re generating that output, a site can use the API to generate a similar output for a similar request. A bot can generate it and post it to social media.
Yeah, don’t trust the first source you see. But if the search results are slowly being colonized by AI slop, it gets to a point where the signal-to-noise ratio is so poor it stops making sense to only blame the poor discernment of those trying to find the signal.
futatorius@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Unless there is a huge disclaimer before every interaction saying “THIS SYSTEM OUTPUTS BOLLOCKS!” then it’s not good enough. And any commercial enterprise that represents any AI-generated customer interaction as factual or correct should be held legally accountable for making that claim.
There are probably already cases where AI is being used for life-and-limb decisions, probably with a do-nothing human rubber stamp in the loop to give plausible deniability. People will be maimed and killed by these decisions.
RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
If these companies are marketing their AI as being able to provide “answers” to your questions they should be liable for any libel they produce.
If they market it as “come have our letter generator give you statistically associated collections of letters to your prompt” then I guess they’re in the clear.