Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Google AI Overview made up an elaborate story about me

    (bsky.app)
    693 points jsheard | 13 comments | 01 Sep 25 14:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.462s | source | bottom
    1. blibble ◴[01 Sep 25 14:56 UTC] No.45093155[source]▶
    the "AI" bullshitters need to be liable for this type of wilful defamation

    and it is wilful, they know full well it has no concept of truthfulness, yet they serve up its slop output directly into the faces of billions of people

    and if this makes "AI" nonviable as a business? tough shit

    replies(1): >>45093360 #
    2. oxguy3 ◴[01 Sep 25 15:27 UTC] No.45093489[source]▶
    The AI summaries in Google aren't presented as wild hallucinations; they show up in an authoritative looking box as an answer to the query you just typed. The New York Times wouldn't be able to get out of libel suits by adding a tiny disclaimer to their masthead; why should it be different for Google?
    replies(1): >>45093534 #
    3. mattbuilds ◴[01 Sep 25 15:36 UTC] No.45093585[source]▶
    That’s a false equivalency, sorry that some of us think companies should actually be responsible for the things they produce.
    4. atq2119 ◴[01 Sep 25 15:44 UTC] No.45093662{4}[source]▶
    Google aren't advertising their search as "for entertainment purposes only" though.

    And even if they did, it wouldn't really matter. The way Google search is overwhelmingly used in practice, misinformation spread by it is a public hazard and needs to be treated as such.

    replies(1): >>45093779 #
    5. oxguy3 ◴[01 Sep 25 15:54 UTC] No.45093763{4}[source]▶
    Fortune tellers typically tell you extremely vague things that are designed to trick you into interpreting them favorably; you hear what you want to hear. "Someone new will come into your life soon" or "Something exciting will happen next week" are not claims that can be disproved.

    They certainly don't make hyperspecific claims like "this YouTuber traveled to Israel and changed his mind about the war there, as documented in a video he posted on August 18".

    replies(1): >>45093838 #
    6. gruez ◴[01 Sep 25 15:55 UTC] No.45093779{5}[source]▶
    >Google aren't advertising their search as "for entertainment purposes only" though.

    So you accept that all of this is just a quibble over what the disclaimer says? Rather than "AI generated, might contain mistakes", it should just say "for entertainment purposes only" and they'll be in the clear?

    7. aDyslecticCrow ◴[01 Sep 25 16:01 UTC] No.45093827{4}[source]▶
    You can sue a fortune teller too if they tell people you're a sex offender and drink piss.
    replies(1): >>45093873 #
    8. ◴[01 Sep 25 16:02 UTC] No.45093838{5}[source]▶
    9. gruez ◴[01 Sep 25 16:05 UTC] No.45093873{5}[source]▶
    Anyone can sue, but has there been a case of a fortune teller actually losing? What if there was no involvement from the fortune teller at all, like if the client asked "is my wife cheating on me", and all 3 cards drawn were in the affirmative?
    replies(3): >>45094166 #>>45094362 #>>45094427 #
    10. lupusreal ◴[01 Sep 25 16:07 UTC] No.45093889[source]▶
    Gruez supports genocide.

    DISCLAIMER: I often make shit up!

    11. aDyslecticCrow ◴[01 Sep 25 16:33 UTC] No.45094166{6}[source]▶
    Fortune telling is a bad strawman and you know it. Fortune tellers talk with one person, give vague advice, and may destroy a relationship at worst.

    If a Fortune teller published articles claiming false things about random prople, gave dangerous medical advice, claiming to be a Nigerian prince, or convinced you to put all your savings into bitcoin; the "entertainment purposes" shield dissolves quite quickly.

    Google makes an authorative statement on top of the worlds most used search engine, in a similar way they previously did with Wikipedia for relevant topics.

    The little disclaimer should not shield them from doing real tangible harm to people.

    12. antonvs ◴[01 Sep 25 16:51 UTC] No.45094362{6}[source]▶
    Fortune telling for profit is illegal in several big US states and other jurisdictions, including e.g. Pennsylvania and New York, for the same kinds of reasons being discussed. It’s not ok to make things up to make a profit unless you’re doing so purely for entertainment, i.e. it’s understood that the statements are fictional.

    The Google disclaimer should probably be upfront and say something more like, “The following statements are fictional, provided for entertainment purposes only. Any resemblance to persons living or dead are purely coincidental.”

    13. const_cast ◴[01 Sep 25 16:58 UTC] No.45094427{6}[source]▶
    Yes, people have lost libel and defamation suits. Its not like being a fortune teller means you can magically lie.