> Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls.
Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
Therein lies the rub. Google does not control what its parrot spouts. No-one does.
This is exactly why Google's public comment on this case from the TFA is:
> "AI Overviews frequently improve to show the most helpful information, and we invest significantly in the quality of responses. When issues arise – like if our features misinterpret web content or miss some context – we use those examples to improve our systems and may take action under our policies."
Google's statement is carefully crafted to make the case that they "act with reasonable care" for legal effect, rather than to win any points in the court of public opinion. Courts have yet to determine what passes the reasonable-care test for negligence wrt AI output. Google feels they need to make sure that regardless of anything else that happens in this case, that the decision does not find their publishing was negligent.
Sure they should, and they should raise the penalties accordingly to punish a company that puts out uncontrolled tech.
> is fully in control of the content that makes it to the user.
They do not control their chatbots parrot's squawking.
Companies that get treated with the rights of people should also have the responsibilities of people. Google designed, built, hosted, and promoted their LLM prominently. Logically, it follows that they should be personally and financially responsible for any harms their LLM causes.
OP says Google has the first. You are saying Google doesn't have the second. Both of you are right in that sense. You are wrong in the sense that the second doesn't matter much here.
If I remove my hands from the wheel of my car, while it would be technically true that I was not "driving" it from that point, if I run over some pedestrian they will counter, rightfully, that the vehicle was under my control the whole time.
No. Nearer the first.
"to order, limit, or rule something, or someone's actions or behaviour".
Google's parrot is out of its control.
It’s wrong.
But it’s definitely a perspective.
Doesn’t work with APIs, but then the person/entity integrating the API should have that responsibility.