morto@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
It would be nice if he decides to sue ars technica for that. Writers and publisher need to learn the hard way that you can’t use ai and trust that for publishing stuff that needs factual coherence. If not by ethics, let it be from fear of lawsuits.
tempest@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Sue them for what? He would have to prove damages and they took it down.
underisk@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Libel. Taking it down doesn’t undo the damage to reputation which libel is concerned with.
tempest@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
As much as I would like to see that happen paying to fight a court case against Conde Nast just to get a retraction that they will stick somewhere invisible doesn’t really sound like a winning formula.
underisk@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Letting them win because you’ve canceled before even playing is also a losing formula. Even if they don’t get awarded monetary damages they can probably at least get their legal expenses covered.
Frenchgeek@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
How about getting them to put an “e” after the “s” in their name instead?
TAG@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
In the US, libel requires you to prove that the writer knew that what they were writing is not true and that they did it to hurt you. Doing lazy research and trusting an AI is not going to meet that standard.
echodot@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
She didn’t do lazy research. He didn’t do any research. They put a pump into an AI copy and pasted the output into a blog post and hit post. The only way they could have done less work is if they’d integrated the AI into the website to save them have to do the copy and paste.
Bazoogle@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They put out a retraction: arstechnica.com/…/editors-note-retraction-of-arti…
morto@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Publicly making false statements using his name isn’t a crime by itself in his jurisdiction?
tempest@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
No, there are a bunch of things required to be met in the US for libel and a bunch of precedent which is why it’s hard to sue for it and succeed
en.wikipedia.org/…/United_States_defamation_law