borariOpenAI sued for defamation after ChatGPT fabricates legal accusations against radio host
borlaxNot gonna lie, this is pretty funny.
Seriously tho, it will be kind of interesting to see how this plays out.
SpitfireHuh….
I wonder how this will be ruled. Can the company really be held accountable for what the AI creates independently?
Kind of an unexplored area.
KoboldCoterieIf so, I think that sets an interesting precedent that could be referenced in copywrite claims over AI generated art... For instance, if a Midjourney user generating an image of Mickey Mouse meant Disney could sue Midjourney directly...
ElectronSoupDoubtful, courts have already ruled AI isn't a 'person' who can create a copyrighted work, thus a non-person can't be held liable for defamation most likely.
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦@ElectronSoup @borari @Spitfire that's just mathwashing:
https://www.mathwashing.com/
The tool cannot be liable itself, obviously, but the creators of the tool and those who wield it absolutely can, depending on specific circumstances.
The "AI" does not "create independently". Just like a script with some randomness built in does not "create independently". Somebody designed and built the tool, somebody decided what training data to use, somebody decided to deploy it. These people are liable.
The tool cannot be liable itself, obviously, but the creators of the tool and those who wield it absolutely can...
I absolutely agree with you here. The creators of the tool are responsible for its content. I'm a complete supporter of Section 230 in the US, but I absolutely do not think that sort of protection should apply to companies like OpenAI. Their tool created the content, their tool "published" the content, they are responsible for that content.
Bornach@rysiek @ElectronSoup @borari @Spitfire
What about OpenAI claiming that their Terms of Service which all ChatGPT users have to sign up to, absolves themselves of all responsibility that their tools have to generate accurate results?
And if LLM is just "spicy autocomplete" should the makers of Swiftkey be held liable for accusations it might generate when a user types out a sentence by repeatedly pressing next-word?
@bornach @ElectronSoup @borari @Spitfire "your honor, I am not liable for the manslaughter in this car accident here because I wrote my own terms of service for my own car that absolve me from manslaughter"
> And if LLM is just "spicy autocomplete" should the makers of Swiftkey be held liable for accusations it might generate when a user types out a sentence by repeatedly pressing next-word?
If they published that on a website pretending to be search? Sure. But they don't.
Enkiusz🇺🇦I imagine they’ll settle this at hyperspeed. The absolute last thing anyone in the AI space wants to do is set legal precedents (because then they wouldn’t be getting away with half the shit they’re doing).
Kevin HerreraI wonder how many times they can do this before they run out of money or patience.
ThrashySooner or later they're gonna run afoul of The Mouse, and then Mickey's gonna sic the deathstar on them and all these copyright/liability questions are going to get sorted out real fast, and probably not in a way that anybody but Disney will be happy with.
Pretty sure this won’t work. It needs to be made more clear what ChatGPT is and isn’t to people who don’t understand that it’s not a super tool that can read our minds.
Art [he/him] 🌈This, combined with the case where the lawyer used ChatGPT and it spit out fake cases, is a sitcom version of Black Mirror waiting to be written ~~by AI~~.