Casey NewtonSuing ChatGPT for defamation feels like suing a calculator for bank fraud
DuncanWatson@caseynewton Feels like sueing a calculator company for failing to perform basic math properly in a hard to detect manner.
Eugene Meidinger@DuncanWatson @caseynewton It reminds of when someone auto generated Keep Calm and Carry On variations and sold them on shirts, and some of them were very offensive.
Louis Ingenthron@DuncanWatson @caseynewton On the contrary. The calculator in this analogy does math perfectly.
Just because people put in bad input or don't like the results doesn't mean it's wrong.
The output categorically fits the expected rules which are advertised, which is to be grammatically correct, not factually correct.
Jesse@LouisIngenthron @DuncanWatson @caseynewton If a calculator was programmed to make plausible looking strings of numbers, but advertised as a calculator, I think a lawsuit might be in order.
@misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton Last I checked, ChatGPT doesn't advertise on the factual accuracy of its AIs.
@LouisIngenthron @DuncanWatson @caseynewton That might save them from legal liability, but not moral culpability.
@misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton Which goes full-circle back to the OP. They should feel as morally culpable for libel as calculator manufacturers do for bank fraud.
@LouisIngenthron @DuncanWatson @caseynewton In fairness, I said "might". IANAL, but the analogy elides relevant differences, so intuitively the legal question doesn't seem clear cut to me. Moreover, Casey seemed to be suggesting that it's an absurd proposition, and I think the statement deserves better on moral grounds alone. I wouldn't derisively say it's absurd to say gun manufacturers should be liable for deaths, even if the chance of a lawsuit succeeding is nil.
Drew 🐘@misc @LouisIngenthron @DuncanWatson @caseynewton IANAL but I'm pretty sure the only thing saving ChatGPT from legal liability is that they aren't publishing anything (given the historical legal interpretation of "publishing"). If someone used ChatGPT to generate news articles that contained falsehoods about someone the ChatGPT component would make it an easy case for the plaintiff because most viable defenses depend on showing genuine effort to determine factual basis for the published info.
Kyozou@LouisIngenthron @misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton
Doesn't matter. If you program a computer to spit out clearly defamatory material about actual living human beings, you are responsible for the actions of your Frankenstein.
@kyozou @misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton If they "programmed a computer to spit out clearly defamatory material", then why is 99% of the material produced non-defamatory?
@LouisIngenthron @misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton
If it's spitting out defamatory material, then someone programmed it in a way that caused it to do that. If you program a autonomous vehicle to drive down a street without stopping, you don't get to pretend that you didn't program it to run over children when that happens.
@kyozou @misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton By that logic, Microsoft Word was programmed to create defamatory content because people can type defamatory content into it. In both cases, the program is responding to user input, not acting on its own.
@LouisIngenthron @kyozou From a glance at your profile and your previous comments, I don’t believe you are being disingenuous, and I think you’re smart enough to see why this is a silly argument. Having said that, I’d appreciate it if you untagged me from any further back-and-forth.
@misc Yes, it was a silly argument, intentionally so, as it was lampooning an absolutist statement.
Sorry for spamming your notifications. But I'm at the end of my rope with that one, so the thread's over anyway.
@LouisIngenthron @misc @DuncanWatson @caseynewton
You seem to be confused about logic.
Iwillyeah@LouisIngenthron they have not taken sufficient measures to prevent it, which seems negligent to me.
@Iwillyeah I could be wrong, but I don't think there is such a thing as "negligent defamation" in the law.
@LouisIngenthron just looking at the laws in my own country, defamation can be accidental seeing as malicious defamation can result in a change in how a statement is treated. By this logic, you can be 'negligently defamatory' though that may not be what it is called in so many words.
@Iwillyeah Yes, Europe in general is much more draconian about free speech than the US. I can't speak to the laws there.
@LouisIngenthron oh right?
@LouisIngenthron I wonder if I stood on the corner with a sign around my neck saying 'grammatically correct', what could I get away with saying?
@Iwillyeah If you include the whole bit, "Grammatically correct, not factually correct", then quite a lot, actually. Context matters, which is why, for example, South Park is able to get away with what it does. Defamation in the United States requires, among other things, a false statement of fact.
So, if you preface your speech with "this may not be true", you're no longer making statements of fact, in context.
Your sandwich board would essentially be serving the same purpose as a disclaimer at the beginning of a comedy program.
So, if you preface your speech with "this may not be true", you're no longer making statements of fact, in context.
Your sandwich board would essentially be serving the same purpose as a disclaimer at the beginning of a comedy program.
@LouisIngenthron South Park can get away with it because it is satire, which is protected. Libel works under the notion that what is said about someone is plausible. Chatgpt does not guarantee accuracy, but it does trade off plausibility, which is a problem when the lies are so damaging to reputation. In fairness, you must know yourself that if chapgpt called you a rapist, made up sources to support it and just left that out into the world, that could not be allowed to stand.
@Iwillyeah Yes, South Park is satire. But *why* is satire protected? Because the context and nature of humor prevents it from being legally considered to be statements of fact. Same here. It's a tech demo toy, not an oracle.
And no, that wouldn't bother me, because I understand that ChatGPT doesn't even understand the concept of 'facts'. So, I assume falsity as a baseline. And, honestly, I think a lot less of anyone foolish enough to believe anything a chatbot tells them.
@LouisIngenthron luckily for the person suing, the quality of intelligence of the person hearing the defamatory statement is not at issue, merely that the statement is damaging to reputation. The other qualifier is that it is plausible. No more than AI, a person is not 'guaranteed to be accurate', but if they say something plausible, it's defamation, even without a guarantee of accuracy on the part of the speaker. Did the bit preface the statement with 'I might be wrong but...'?