91% accuracy is the kind of thing that may sound good… hey! It’s an A minus! But it’s actually completely, totally unacceptable. Imagine if the turn signal wand on your car operated with 91% accuracy. About one in every ten times it would light up the wrong direction. How many accidents are we causing? A lot.
Removing all the emotion from this, the specific problem with these AI overviews is how Google presents them to you.
Everybody with some sense knows AI’s can excrete total hogwash and it’s answers need to be fact checked down to the most minute detail. Some people take what they get from AI’s as gospel anyway, but that is a them problem.
But Google a: calls these summaries, and b: presents them as the top search result. Both of these things come with a greater than normal degree of implied factuality.
Someone techincally minded will know it’s still AI an subject to the same scrutiny but the population at large simply does not, because they entered a search query in a google search box and aren’t willingly and deliberately talking to an AI.
And that’s a problem too. If everything ai says should be fact checked, the burden is shifted back to the consumer making the convenience or ‘productivity’ aspect virtually nonexistent. Such a cop out. Here’s your answer! *be sure to fact check. Okay so google it basically? Why the ai then? Just stupid
Here is an example… Apparently Zelensky was a US president at one point and we all missed it.
That’s actually a really good summary of the issue. It’s the tacitly implied authenticity and “goodness of match” that being the top result implies that shifts the balance.
If they’d put a “generate AI summary of search” button to display the AI result, I the they’d be on firmer ground.
“This slop is not available in your country.”
VPN getting set to Germany if that happens.
Based.
Can we apply the same logic and principle to self driving cars now please and hold the owners of the proprietary software fully and properly responsible for every poor judgement, traffic violation, accident injury and death that happens in self drive mode.
What needs to happen is:
-
an enforceable certification process, like part of FMVSS, to state “this vehicle is certified as L[0-5] self driving per https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-05/Level-of-Automation-052522-tag.pdf”. Put the certification on the window sticker. Have it reported to insurance.
-
Levels 0-2 cannot be advertised as self driving, even though there may be hands-free driving capability in some limited cases. The driver remains fully responsible and liable (no change to current liability rules essentially)
-
Levels 3 and 4 will be required to have shared liability with the driver and manufacturer in all conditions where the vehicle is in control of itself. This includes roads that the vehicle should be able to navigate autonomously and the driver has requested it to, but it is not for any reason.
-
Level 5 would place liability on the manufacturer solely, as there is no indicated driver in this case. This is the only one that can be advertised as “self-driving”.
Would work IF you add the proviso that levels 3-4 cannot be advertised or implied to operate on their own initiative.
-
Yes, but at the same time can we stop marketing as “self driving cars” normal cars with a somewhat sophisticated cruise control, like Teslas, and stop pretending their “super full self driving unsupervised for realsies plus plus” is a “self drive mode”?
Limited liability stops the owners being responsible. It’s the executives running the company that should go to jail.
Okay, but how do you prove any specific allegation when the responses are dynamic?
Take a screenshot
Do you take screenshots of all of your prompts just in case you need to litigate later?
All the arguments of “AI doesn’t impact copyright because it creates derivative content” were bound to lead here. You can’t (or at least shouldn’t be able to) have it both ways.
I was thinking the same thing.
An AI output is EITHER an original work (either as a wholly original work or as a derivative of another work), or it’s not (and is thus a republication of an existing work).
If it’s a republication, then Google owes a ton of copyright fees and the original publisher of whatever bit of training data got regurgitated is liable. If it’s an original / derivative work, then Google owes nobody anything, but is responsible for whatever the AI outputs.
For example if I write somewhere ‘It’s 100% safe to mix ammonia and chlorine, it gets stains out super fast!’ (note- DON’T do this, it’s toxic), I’m the author of that statement so if someone does that and dies I’ve got partial responsibility for that death.
Same thing with Google.
For example if I write somewhere ‘It’s 100% safe to mix ammonia and chlorine, it gets stains out super fast!’ (note- DON’T do this, it’s toxic), I’m the author of that statement so if someone does that and dies I’ve got partial responsibility for that death.
Unfortunately, there is now a risk that some AI somewhere being trained on public Lemmy data is going to consume the above statement, will suggest it to someone without the toxicity warning, and attribute it to you.
Sadly this is happening.
Example one- Q: How many USB ports does my computer have? A: kill yourself.
Example two- Q: how should I deal with depression? A: jump off the Golden Gate Bridge.
Example three- Q: Should I run with scissors? A: Yup!
Let’s not forget a healthy diet includes eating rocks.
Or that you should drink urine to pass kidney stones.
Hey, your examples are missing /u/fucksmith’s pizza recipe from reddit.
Fun fact: Methyl cellulose is actually used as a form of glue, but is also used in food. It’s derived from cellulose. This also happens to be the stuff those anti-vegan fanatics are referring to, when they claim that vegan alternatives have “wallpaper paste” in them (while ignoring that it’s also used in some meat products and ice cream).
I thought wallpaper glue was made of cornstarch…
For example if I write somewhere ‘It’s 100% safe to mix ammonia and chlorine, it gets stains out super fast!’ (note- DON’T do this, it’s toxic), I’m the author of that statement so if someone does that and dies I’ve got partial responsibility for that death.
Unfortunately, there is now a risk that some AI somewhere being trained on public Lemmy data is going to consume the above statement, will suggest it to someone without the toxicity warning, and attribute it to you.
Or us, since we’ve both quotes them now.
For example if I write somewhere ‘It’s 100% safe to mix ammonia and chlorine, it gets stains out super fast!’ (note- DON’T do this, it’s toxic), I’m the author of that statement so if someone does that and dies I’ve got partial responsibility for that death.
Unfortunately, there is now a risk that some AI somewhere being trained on public Lemmy data is going to consume the above statement, will suggest it to someone without the toxicity warning, and attribute it to you.
Or us, since we’ve both quotes them now.
I am Spartacus
His name is Robert Paulson.
Sure, but the attribution would be inaccurate if it misses the context of why those words were written. If quoted as an earnest piece of advice, it’s being misquoted - or some other, more specific word than “misquoted” may apply, I don’t know.
Legally? Probably. But that really wasn’t the point. The point was more that without suitable controls in place AIs are able to consume all sorts of bad data and potentially attribute it to you (or me, or whomever) while leaving out important context.
It won’t matter if some AI consumed your message and gave someone the advise to inappropriately mix harmful chemicals, attributed it to you, and they wound up hurting themselves or someone else. They might still blame you, and may not care that there was missing context.
Note that that’s not intended as any sort of criticism of you or your post, more that we’ve entered a wild-west of AI development, and we as content producers may not be entirely safe. We’ve already seen AIs recommend people try adding Elmer’s glue to pizza sauce based on joke posts online. It might only be a matter of time before a child or youth gets hurt — and an upset parent may not care about the semantics of whether or not you were correctly attributed or not.
But your honor I really wanna
If you add in “and here’s your check, sir” at the end this method actually works in the USA.
It’s all
moneychecks and balan… Ahh
Ayyy
Excellent. Make platforms with algorithmic feeds count as publishers, too, and you can solve 90% of the world’s problems
What do you mean by “algorithmic”? Something like a recommendation engine?
Basically anything where the platform prioritises some things over others, rather than just giving you the posts/videos/whatever in order from the people you’ve subscribed to. Recommendation engines would be one example
Need to abolish the corporate veil too. Those parasitic fucks can buy liability insurance.
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaa! YES!
A regular search engine just points to outside websites. But AI overviews generate “independent, new, and substantive statements” by evaluating and combining content from various third-party sites. And only Google can check those statements, the court said, “at least by comparing the underlying third-party websites with its own statements based on them.”
Honestly this is all the reasoning you need to infer that Google should be liable. Google alone has editorial control over the summary their AI generates, not the outside sources used to generate these statements, ergo Google should be held liable for that.
At the hearing, Google argued that users could check the linked sources themselves to verify whether the AI summary was correct. Users generally knew “that information generated with AI should not be blindly trusted,” the company claimed.
… And you know that’s true when the best Google could muster as a defence is to say that people shouldn’t be blindly trusting the AI, which ironically means even Google thinks their AI is full of shit.
But unfortunately for Google, not only does the court not buy that defence, but it would appear that’s contrary to how most people use the feature.
The ruling may also have international reach, according to the court.
I seriously hope so. Its about time companies started taking proper liability for the actions of their LLMs.
And if Google complains that it’s on the pieces of info they got from 3th parties that were wrong and name them, then the 3th parties are able to request compensation for using that info.
Exactly. Can’t have it both ways.
If Google want to claim the liability falls with the source’s its pulling from, then it should be taking explicit permission to cite these sources and be paying them.
Otherwise it’s an AI-powered editorial, and that’s on Google.
Though personally I’d be happy with the entire system being scrapped, as it only serves to fuck over small publishers and people’s ability to search for and be critical of information.
Every “AI” company should be (reasonably) liable for what their tools say. How is this even a novel idea?
If a newspaper accidentaly prints false information, they have to publish a correction and might pay a fine. But if they print a front page article about making a pipe bomb, then the editor would probably get sentenced.
This approach would be perfectly fine with LLMs. I understand the nature of the technology, but if they cannot guarantee the quality of the output, then the product is just not ready yet, and we are currently doing unpaid testing.
Except that this will fuck over small companies. Because if we follow this reasoning, the next step is to debate what is AI and what’s not. And the poor folk lose that battle because of legal fees.
I mean, hey, tell me how an automated summary is not AI. Argue that. Give me a clear legal standard… Easy to hand wave, hard to get right.
I fail to understand why it should be bad for small companies.
In my experience most small companies don’t have public AI summaries. And even if they do i still think it’s their obligation to check what they make public.
In the not so distant future just about every site will have AI summarization or QnA as a core part.
Instead of searching through endless documentation you ask AI to trawl and give you the answer. This is undeniably useful. But if they give the wrong answer once and suddenly become liable, that’s a potential risk.
How is it “undeniably useful” if it has the potential of giving wrong answers?
Also and perhaps more importantly, are these the lengths people go to avoid reading? If so, we are doomed.
Not everyone enjoys reading documentation. We don’t need to be defensive about this. We already have search that can trawl through a well maintained site.
AI can not only go through the documentation but also translate it to layman and point to the sources.
If it gives the wrong answer 1 in every thousand results, it is still undeniably useful. You shouldn’t blindly trust AI is common place knowledge. And it’s no different than doing a Google search for something and some times clicking into a result that is bad. The fact that that possibility exists doesn’t change the fact google is "undeniably " useful.
I’m going to be straightforward with you and say that if someone doesn’t want to read documentation, they shouldn’t be doing the job the documentation is for.
I’ve been bitten by AI summarizing documentation so many times, these days I refuse to use it for that purpose anymore. It’s just not worth it. It creates a loop where it wants to try things that don’t work, walk back, try something else, repeat, and spend $10 worth of tokens in the process.
You say that I shouldn’t blindly trust AI like I shouldn’t blindly trust Google results. The difference is that AI is presented as an authoritative source in itself. Hell, most of the time LLMs don’t link sources unless explicitly asked for. And here’s the thing, if I have to go and read the actual sources, it isn’t doing anything significantly more time efficient than just text search, but it is doing it at ten times the cost.
A potential risk that any company implementing an AI for something as simple as a Q&A should be aware of prior to doing that.
If they don’t want the liability, then just don’t use AI for public facing functions. Its not difficult.
In the not so distant future just about every site will have AI summarization or QnA as a core part.
Hopefully not, and this ruling goes some way to ensuring sense prevails. It’s a little different if the LLM providing the “AI” summarization has been trained exclusively on the contents of the site; that ensures that only the work of the site authors is used in generating the summary, which means it’s their words, and also probably less likely to hallucinate.
Instead of searching through endless documentation you ask AI to trawl and give you the answer. This is undeniably useful.
I deny it. The results of an LLM being used to answer a question are far too often wrong to ever be trusted. Sometimes the errors are obvious, much more often they are subtle and harder to spot, but delivered with certainty none-the-less. This ruling ensures that the ones providing the LLM summary are held liable, in the same way they would be if a human wrote the same summary.
But if they give the wrong answer once and suddenly become liable, that’s a potential risk.
Correct, and that is as it should be. Apply the same logic to a human written piece and you will see that.
It’s very obviously not even the tiniest bit useful and, in fact, is simply a huge liability that could be done safer and cheaper by a person.
In the not so distant future you use your own personal AI to do the trawling and if that thing gets it wrong that’s on you or the company that made it.
There’s a difference between you making use of a tool and you publishing the results of that tool.
Why should a vendor be able to make false claims about a product with impunity?
I have a feeling that the megacorporation’s AI generating false statements about smaller businesses that effectively drives customership away from them harms a lot more small businesses way more than AI-powered businesses being held to account for what their AI states as fact publically.
(And that’s not even counting the harm Google’s AI summaries are already doing to small publishers by driving traffic away from the very websites its using as source material.)
If a company doesn’t want the liability associated with a rogue agent making false statements, then I’ve got news for you - they don’t have to use AI. Literally nobody is forcing small private businesses to use AI for anything.
And what @MyButSmellsBat@feddit.org has said is entirely true. Most small companies won’t have an AI, and those that do should still be held accountable for their AI’s public statements.
the next step is to debate what is AI and what’s not.
Unnecessary, in my view. If you use a tool to produce something, and that something breaks a law, then you are liable, not the tool. Doesn’t matter whether it’s a hammer or an AI. If a human employed by Google had written the incorrect summary on Google’s behalf, then Google would still be liable (the difference is that the human writer might also be individually liable, depending on local law).
Search engines received various kinds of legal immunity in many jurisdictions because they were only presenting information written by third parties outside their control. These summaries are not third-party content, and if they are libelous, the responsibility falls squarely on Google.
If you use a tool to produce something, and that something breaks a law, then you are liable, not the tool.
I agree and I apply that to gun manufacturers.
deleted by creator
Does it use an LLM to generate the summary. Yes or no. This is a binary. It is incredibly easy to define. It’s almost laughable that you think this is a problem.
what small companies are giving users of their search engine ai overviews? why would you argue ai summaries are not ai? what the muddy waters is going on here…?
for liability it doesn’t matter whether small company has written the summary themselves or generated it. they already had liability for what they say.
Yes! They are responsible. They’re not quoting, they are hallucinating crap they think someone else wrote somewhere.
While this is a solid ruling and establishes great precedent, it’s in Germany and so likely will only eventually apply to the EU. It would be cool to see a similar decision from a US court.
If Google wants to stick with its AI push, I can’t imagine they would want to keep training 2 different models; especially if one of them could land them in more hot water down the road. While it would eventually apply to the EU, I can imagine the rollout would be global. Similar to how Apple was forced by the EU to ditch their proprietary connector for USB-C: instead of having an EU & North American model; they just adapted USB-C across all their devices
I imagine the play will be to not offer AI anything in Germany and fan the flames of “we’re being left behind in technology”* paranoia amongst politicians until they legislate a special carve out.
* Not my opinion, but it is a thing that the briefcase class likes to say to each other to give them an excuse to dome off big tech CEOs.
I literally laughed out loud reading the headline. Good shit, hopefully the Find Out season will carry on at this kinda pace. Probably won’t, but it’d be nice to see.
A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for false claims in its AI-generated search overviews.
Unfortunately, the regional court is the lowest court stage. This will climb up until highest German court and after this to the EU court, I expect to see.
Being then a „Grundsatzurteil“ that is leading all courts in Germany. Our legal system isn’t case driven.
Unfortunately, the regional court is the lowest court stage
No. Landgericht is the second stage already.
It’s Germany, they’ll just find a way to blame Brussels and throw more money at the US as an apology.
This is more important that just AI overviews and establishes that companies are responsible for the editorializing they do. That’s much more important in algorithmic suggestions, which drive people into doing things they never would have done otherwise (see: Trump voters).
I hope this stands through all instances and is applied generously, because so many people have been fucked up beyond recognition by following the trail of the algorithm, especially on social and video sites.
Iv always compared it to a library vs news station.
A library collects and helps distribute information. But none of it is their own. While a news station driectly reports on and creates the information that is later catalogued.
Its why in theory a reporter and new source should be held to a very high standard, while a library could in theory be full of bad, false, or other wise misleading information.
A library can’t actually do anything about it realistically on a grand scale. Sure they can ban or bar repeated known offenders. But it’s a cat and mouse game. Same as a search engine. They can stop indexing people who are problems, but they have no real way to know ahead of time till it becomes a problem.
Ai on the other hand is reporting and generating direct sources by its own actions. Its no longer just indexing.
Nor should the library do something! They’re in the job of archiving. The news people, that’s reporting, and it better be done accurately and conscientiously.
Nor should the library do something!
They should and are doing something about it, because libraries are being flooded with digital slop books that they end up having to pay the distributor for when a patron checks it out.
404Media had some stories last year I think where librarians were removing books from the catalog to save money for real authors and to cut down on the number of complaints received about the obvious slop the books contained.
Can anyone explain how the appeals system works in German courts? I have no idea how the law works in Europe, but it can’t be that different from America that there’s a chance this could get overturned in appeals, right?
I don’t know how the German appeals system works, but there is a lot of room for difference.
A particular reading spree once caused me to learn that the UK, a modern civilized country, didn’t have what we would call a supreme court until 2009.
Their laws aren’t codified. We have a big book o’ laws, and we pass bills that modify the book. If it’s not in the book it’s not a law. They pass bills that are the laws. This sounds really similar until you consider that “the law” is a collection of every act of parliament going back nearly a thousand years, many of which cancel out others. Oh, and that extends to the concept of a “constitution”.Some quick searching shows that Germany uses a fundamentally different legal model that views our big book o’ laws as unstructured because courts have a binding say in interpretation of the law. It seems that this regional court can be appealed, and also that their courts don’t use precedent like ours do, so an appeal is more like a second opinion than an escalation.
Judges are less referee and more investigator, so you can claim that the judge made a mistake with their decision, which is appeal.Oh and the US and UK share what is called “common law” system as well in which decision by the courts are able to referenced as what the law is as well.
So if the legislator writes a law making apples illegal, but a court decided that wasnt true for guys named John, then when someone is charged for it they could cite the “not Johns” ruling as why it shouldn’t apply to them.
Yup, that’s the precedent bit I mentioned. They’re both valid ways of deciding ambiguity (a judge decides in this situation and other judges aren’t obligated to decide the same way, or lawyers debate the ambiguity, a jury decides, and courts strive for consistency), but they’re fundamentally different and slightly bewildering to people from the other model.
Purely an answer to the question "I mean, how different could they really be?”: fundamentally different in an almost unrecognizable way.
