←back to thread

693 points jsheard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
meindnoch ◴[] No.45093248[source]
It's not Google's fault. The 6pt text at the bottom clearly says:

"AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more"

replies(2): >>45093295 #>>45093476 #
blibble ◴[] No.45093476[source]
it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content

how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender?

not a quote from someone else, just completely made up based on nothing other than word salad

would you honestly think "oh that's fine, because there's a size 8 text at the bottom saying it may be incorrect"

I very much doubt it

replies(2): >>45093503 #>>45093531 #
gruez ◴[] No.45093503[source]
>it IS google's fault, because they have created and are directly publishing defamatory content

>how would you feel if someone searched for your name, and Google's first result states that you, unambiguously (by name and city) are a registered sex offender?

Suppose AI wasn't in the picture, and google was only returning a snippet of the top result, which was a slanderous site saying that you're a registered sex offender. Should google still be held liable? If so, should they be held liable immediately, or only after a chance to issue a correction?

replies(6): >>45093589 #>>45093604 #>>45093625 #>>45093638 #>>45093810 #>>45094110 #
margalabargala ◴[] No.45093638[source]
That would depend on whether the snippet was presented as "this is a view of the other website" vs "this is some information"

In the latter case I'm fine with "yes" and "immediately". When you build a system that purports to give answers to real world questions, then you're responsible for the answers given.

information is from another website and may not be correct.

replies(1): >>45093659 #
gruez ◴[] No.45093659[source]
>That would depend on whether the snippet was presented as "this is a view of the other website" vs "this is some information"

So all google had to do was reword their disclaimer differently?

replies(1): >>45093739 #
margalabargala ◴[] No.45093739{3}[source]
Stop strawmanning.

No, there's no "wording" that gets you off the hook. That's the point. It's a question of design and presentation. Would a legal "Reasonable Person" seeing the site know it was another site's info, e.g. literally showing the site in an iframe, or is google presenting it as their own info?

If google is presenting the output of a text generator they wrote, it's easily the latter.

replies(2): >>45093841 #>>45094203 #
gruez ◴[] No.45093841{4}[source]
>Stop strawmanning.

Nice try, but asking a question confirming your opponent's position isn't a strawman.

>No, there's no "wording" that gets you off the hook. That's the point. It's a question of design and presentation. Would a legal "Reasonable Person" seeing the site know it was another site's info, e.g. literally showing the site in an iframe, or is google presenting it as their own info?

So you want the disclaimer to be reworded and moved up top?

replies(3): >>45093912 #>>45094242 #>>45095620 #
1. 8note ◴[] No.45094242{5}[source]
the snippet should be written differently.

instead of the ai saying "gruez is japanese" it should say "hacker news alleges[0] gruez is japanese"

there shouldn't be a separate disclaimer: the LLM should tell true statements rather than imply that the claims are true.