Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Google AI Overview made up an elaborate story about me

    (bsky.app)
    693 points jsheard | 11 comments | 01 Sep 25 14:27 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
    Show context
    deepvibrations ◴[01 Sep 25 14:58 UTC] No.45093169[source]▶
    The law needs to stand up and make an example here, otherwise this will just continue and at some point a real disaster will occur due to AI.
    replies(2): >>45093230 #>>45094131 #
    koolba ◴[01 Sep 25 15:04 UTC] No.45093230[source]▶
    > The law needs to stand up and make an example here, otherwise this will just continue and at some point a real disaster will occur due to AI.

    What does it mean to “make and example”?

    I’m for cleaning up AI slop as much as the next natural born meat bag, but I also detest a litigious society. The types of legal action that stops this in the future would immediately be weaponized.

    replies(4): >>45093255 #>>45093318 #>>45093445 #>>45093764 #
    1. recursive ◴[01 Sep 25 15:06 UTC] No.45093255[source]▶
    Weapons against misinformation are good weapons. Bring on the weaponization.
    replies(2): >>45093307 #>>45093321 #
    2. gruez ◴[01 Sep 25 15:11 UTC] No.45093307[source]▶
    >Weapons against misinformation are good weapons

    It's all fun and games until the political winds sway the other way, and the other side are attacking your side for "misinformation".

    replies(2): >>45097470 #>>45102007 #
    3. Newlaptop ◴[01 Sep 25 15:12 UTC] No.45093321[source]▶
    The weapons will be used by the people in power.

    Do you want your country's current political leaders to have more weapons to suppress information they dislike or facts they disagree with? If yes, will you also be happy if your country's opposition leaders gain that power in a few years?

    replies(3): >>45093509 #>>45093565 #>>45093728 #
    4. gregates ◴[01 Sep 25 15:29 UTC] No.45093509[source]▶
    There are already laws against libel and slander. And yes, people like Trump and Musk routinely try to abuse them. They are often unsuccessful. The existence of the laws does not seem to be the relevant factor in whether these attempts to abuse the system succeed.
    5. delusional ◴[01 Sep 25 15:34 UTC] No.45093565[source]▶
    Two counterpoints:

    What we're talking about here are legal democratic weapons. The only thing stopping us from using these weapons right now is democratic governance. "The bad people", being unconcerned with democracy, can already use these weapons right now. Trumps unilateral application of tariffs wasn't predestined by some advancement of governmental power by the democrats. He just did it. We don't even know if it was even legal.

    Secondly, the people in power are who are spreading this misinformation we are looking at. Information is getting suppressed by the powerful. Namely Google.

    Placing limits on democracy in the name of "stopping the bad guys" will usually just curtail the good guys from doing good things, and bad guys doing the bad thing anyway.

    6. tehwebguy ◴[01 Sep 25 15:51 UTC] No.45093728[source]▶
    They already do and they don’t even have to be powerful.

    A conspiracy guy who ran a disqualified campaign for a TN rep seat sued Facebook for defamation for a hallucination saying he took part in the J6 riots. They settled the suit and hired him as an anti-DEI advisor.

    (I don’t have proof that hiring him was part of the undisclosed settlement terms but since I’m not braindead I believe it was.)

    replies(1): >>45101326 #
    7. recursive ◴[01 Sep 25 23:18 UTC] No.45097470[source]▶
    I'm having a hard time thinking of any winds where I would want it to be acceptable to publish false statements about a person. It doesn't seem there's even any dispute about whether the statements are false. These things can be complicated, but this is not complicated. I'm not feeling a need to rush to the defense of Google for making false statements about some guy.
    8. aspenmayer ◴[02 Sep 25 10:54 UTC] No.45101326{3}[source]▶
    > A conspiracy guy who ran a disqualified campaign for a TN rep seat sued Facebook for defamation for a hallucination saying he took part in the J6 riots. They settled the suit and hired him as an anti-DEI advisor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_Starbuck#Lawsuit_against...

    > (I don’t have proof that hiring him was part of the undisclosed settlement terms but since I’m not braindead I believe it was.)

    It seems to be public information that this was a condition of the settlement, so no speculation necessary:

    https://www.theverge.com/news/757537/meta-robby-starbuck-con... | https://archive.is/uihsi

    https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-robby-starbuck-ai-lawsuit-s... | https://archive.is/0VKrL

    replies(1): >>45102752 #
    9. ◴[02 Sep 25 12:06 UTC] No.45102007[source]▶
    10. tehwebguy ◴[02 Sep 25 13:17 UTC] No.45102752{4}[source]▶
    Yeah but the articles don’t directly attribute that specific part to any source and I’m not trying to get sued next.
    replies(1): >>45105244 #
    11. aspenmayer ◴[02 Sep 25 16:25 UTC] No.45105244{5}[source]▶
    Sued for quoting an article? Get real. No judge would approve those charges.