AI such as Chat GPT right now is at best, a knowledgeable mate in a bar, sometimes right, sometimes full of absolute bullshit.
You also can’t sue for defamation, since everything ChatGPT says is prefaced by this can be false. This would hold true for a person.
Maybe you can sue based on a GDPR complaint.
And you’re acknowledging my point: AI is like your drunk friend in a bar, so you shouldn’t trust it for mission critical use cases.
P.S. I fear that a large number of people do believe that reality matches dramatizations. If I had my 'druthers, some basic How Contracts Work would be part of the US high-school curriculum, along with Debts, Compound Interest, and Taxes.
I mean, these are like, 12 year old boy logic. "Ahh I'm not touching you!" while they wave their hand in your face. That doesn't fly in the legal world.
Also, just because you sign a contract doesn't mean you can't sue either. You can! Many, maybe most, contracts are invalid. You can't just write down whatever and make the other person do it. You can fight non-competes, NDAs, you name it.
Also, if you got fired for "performance" (air quotes) that doesn't mean you can't sue. You can! Most discrimination cases occur when someone is fired for "performance". HR isn't stupid.
No? In many countries simply going 'it was a joke' or 'I was simply lying' isn't a defense for defamation. Even here in the US in particularly exceptional circumstances it's not a defense (see: Alex Jones).
The outcome is likely to be that companies are going to be held liable for what their models say. Much like how Air Canada was ordered to pay up after their chatbot lied.
With the right caveats, e.g. a large disclaimer emitted before and after each response, ChatGPT should be able to get away with spewing complete BS. At that point, the onus is on anybody who trusts it.
In fact, I'm more interested in why they're allowed to hide behind that defense at all anymore.
I think the key point is that it's shown it's far less useful than just learning how to do things.