←back to thread

693 points jsheard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
blibble ◴[] 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 #
gruez[dead post] ◴[] No.45093360[source]
[flagged]
oxguy3 ◴[] 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 #
gruez[dead post] ◴[] No.45093534[source]
[flagged]
aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.45093827[source]
You can sue a fortune teller too if they tell people you're a sex offender and drink piss.
replies(1): >>45093873 #
gruez ◴[] No.45093873[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 #
1. antonvs ◴[] 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.”