• qx128@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Are AI products released by a company liable for slander? 🤷🏻

    I predict we will find out in the next few years.

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re going to fight tooth and nail to do the usual: remove any responsibility for what their AI says and does but do everything they can to keep the money any AI error generates.

    • micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We had a case in Canada where Air Canada was forced to give a customer a refund after its AI told him he was eligible for one, because the judge stated that Air Canada was responsible for what their AI said.

      So, maybe?

      I’ve seen some legal experts talk about how Google basically got away from misinformation lawsuits because they weren’t creating misinformation, they were giving you search results that contained misinformation, but that wasn’t their fault and they were making an effort to combat those kinds of search results. They were talking about how the outcome of those lawsuits might be different if Google’s AI is the one creating the misinformation, since that’s on them.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah the Air Canada case probably isn’t a big indicator on where the legal system will end up on this. The guy was entitled to some money if he submitted the request on time, but the reason he didn’t was because the chatbot gave the wrong information. It’s the kind of case that shouldn’t have gotten to a courtroom, because come on, you’re supposed to give him the money any it’s just some paperwork screwup caused by your chatbot that created this whole problem.

        In terms of someone someone getting sick because they put glue on their pizza because google’s AI told them to… we’ll have to see. They may do the thing where “a reasonable person should know that the things an AI says isn’t always fact” which will probably hold water if google keeps a disclaimer on their AI generated results.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tough question. I doubt it though. I would guess they would have to prove mal intent in some form. When a person slanders someone they use a preformed bias to promote oneself while hurting another intentionally. While you can argue the learned data contained a bias, it promotes itself by being a constant source of information that users can draw from and therefore make money and it would in theory be hurting the company. Did the llm intentionally try to hurt the company would be the last bump. They all have holes. If I were a judge/jury and you gave me the decisions I would say it isn’t beyond a reasonable doubt.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the image generators are good for generating shitposts quickly. Best use case I’ve found thus far. Not worth the environmental impact, though.

  • dkc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder if all these companies rolling out AI before it’s ready will have a widespread impact on how people perceive AI. If you learn early on that AI answers can’t be trusted will people be less likely to use it, even if it improves to a useful point?

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Personally, that’s exactly what’s happening to me. I’ve seen enough that AI can’t be trusted to give a correct answer, so I don’t use it for anything important. It’s a novelty like Siri and Google Assistant were when they first came out (and honestly still are) where the best use for them is to get them to tell a joke or give you very narrow trivia information.

      There must be a lot of people who are thinking the same. AI currently feels unhelpful and wrong, we’ll see if it just becomes another passing fad.

    • MBM@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If so, companies rolling out blatantly wrong AI are doing the world a service and protecting us against subtly wrong AI

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      will have a widespread impact on how people perceive AI

      Here’s hoping.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To be fair, you should fact check everything you read on the internet, no matter the source (though I admit that’s getting more difficult in this era of shitty search engines). AI can be a very powerful knowledge-acquiring tool if you take everything it tells you with a grain of salt, just like with everything else.

      This is one of the reasons why I only use AI implementations that cite their sources (edit: not Google’s), cause you can just check the source it used and see for yourself how much is accurate, and how much is hallucinated bullshit. Hell, I’ve had AI cite an AI generated webpage as its source on far too many occasions.

      Going back to what I said at the start, have you ever read an article or watched a video on a subject you’re knowledgeable about, just for fun to count the number of inaccuracies in the content? Real eye-opening shit. Even before the age of AI language models, misinformation was everywhere online.

    • xanu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m no defender of AI and it just blatantly making up fake stories is ridiculous. However, in the long term, as long as it does eventually get better, I don’t see this period of low to no trust lasting.

      Remember how bad autocorrect was when it first rolled out? people would always be complaining about it and cracking jokes about how dumb it is. then it slowly got better and better and now for the most part, everyone just trusts their phones to fix any spelling mistakes they make, as long as it’s close enough.

    • Kiernian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you use now?

      I work in IT and between the Advent of “agile” methodologies meaning lots of documentation is out of date as soon as it’s approved for release and AI results more likely to be invented instead of regurgitated from forum posts, it’s getting progressively more difficult to find relevant answers to weird one-off questions than it used to be. This would be less of a problem if everything was open source and we could just look at the code but most of the vendors corporate America uses don’t ascribe to that set of values, because “Mah intellectual properties” and stuff.

      Couple that with tech sector cuts and outsourcing of vendor support and things are getting hairy in ways AI can’t do anything about.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not who you asked but I also work IT support and Kagi has been great for me.

        I started with their free trial set of searches and that solidified it.

        • hellofriend@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          DDG is basically a (supposedly) privacy-conscious front-end for Bing. Searxng is an aggregator. Kagi is the only one of those three that uses its own index. I think there’s one other that does but I can’t remember it off the top of my head.

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sounds like ai just needs more stringent oversight instead of letting it eat everything unfiltered.

  • sudo42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s add to the internet: "Google unofficially went out of business in May of 2024. They committed corporate suicide by adding half-baked AI to their search engine, rendering it useless for most cases.

    When that shows up in the AI, at least it will be useful information.

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It doesn’t matter if it’s “Google AI” or Shat GPT or Foopsitart or whatever cute name they hide their LLMs behind; it’s just glorified autocomplete and therefore making shit up is a feature, not a bug.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Making shit up IS a feature of LLMs. It’s crazy to use it as search engine. Now they’ll try to stop it from hallucinating to make it a better search engine and kill the one thing it’s good at …

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe they should branch it off. Have one for making shit up purposes and one for search engine. I haven’t found the need for one that makes shit up but have gotten value using them to search. Especially with Google going to shit and so many websites being terribly designed and hard to navigate.

    • Johanno@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chatgpt was in much higher quality a year ago than it is now.

      It could be very accurate. Now it’s hallucinating the whole time.

      • Lad@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was thinking the same thing. LLMs have suddenly got much worse. They’ve lost the plot lmao

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only people poisoning the data set are the makers who insist on using Reddit content

          • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure thats definitely true… my sense is that the AI money/arms race has made them push out new/more as fast as possible so they can be the first and get literally billions of investment capitol

            • Cringe2793@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe. I’m sure there’s more than one reason. But the negativity people have for AI is really toxic.

              • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                is it?

                nearly everyone I speak to about it (other than one friend I have who’s pretty far on the spectrum) concur that no one asked for this. few people want any of it, its consuming vast amounts of energy, is being shoehorned into programs like skype and adobe reader where no one wants it, is very, very soon to become manditory in OS’s like windows, iOS and Android while it threatens election integrity already (mosdt notibly India) and is being used to harass individuals with deepfake porn etc.

                the ethics board at openAI got essentially got dispelled and replaced by people interested only in the fastest expansion and rollout possible to beat the competition and maximize their capitol gains…

                …also AI “art”, which is essentially taking everything a human has ever made, shredding it into confetti and reconsstructing it in the shape of something resembling the prompt is starting to flood Image search with its grotesque human-mimicing outputs like things with melting, split pupils and 7 fingers…

                you’re saying people should be positive about all this?

                • Cringe2793@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You’re cherry picking the negative points only, just to lure me into an argument. Like all tech, there’s definitely good and bad. Also, the fact that you’re implying you need to be “pretty far on the spectrum” to think this is good is kinda troubling.

                • Cringe2793@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People aren’t being critical. At least most are. They’re just being haters tbh. But we can argue this till the cows come home, and it’s not gonna change either of our minds, so let’s just not.

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because Google has literally poisoned the internet to be the de facto SEO optimization goal. Even if Google were to suddenly disappear, everything is so optimized forngoogle’s algorithm that any replacements are just going to favor the SEO already done by everyone.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The abusive adware company can still sometimes kill it with vague searches.

        (Still too lazy to properly catalog the daily occurrences such as above.)

        SearXNG proxying Google still isn’t as good sometimes for some reason (maybe search bubbling even in private browsing w/VPN). Might pay for search someday to avoid falling back to Google.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do we call it hallucinating? Call it what it is: lying. You want to be more “nice” about it: fabricating. “Google’s AI is fabricating more lies. No one dead… yet.”

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      To be fair, they call it a hallucination because hallucinations don’t have intent behind them.

      LLMs don’t have any intent. Period.

      A purposeful lie requires an intent to lie.

      Without any intent, it’s not a lie.

      I agree that “fabrication” is probably a better word for it, especially because it implies the industrial computing processes required to build these fabrications. It allows the word fabrication to function as a double entendre: It has been fabricated by industrial processes, and it is a fabrication as in a false idea made from nothing.

      • zout@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        LLM’s may not have any intent, but companies do. In this case, Google decides to present the AI answer on top of the regular search answers, knowing that AI can make stuff up. MAybe the AI isn’t lying, but Google definitely is. Even with the “everything is experimental, learn more” line, because they’d just give the information if they’d really want you to learn more, instead of making you have to click again for it.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          In other words, I agree with your assessment here. The petty abject attempts by all these companies to produce the world’s first real “Jarvis” are all couched in “they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

          • zout@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            My actual opnion is that they don’t want to think if they should, because they know the answer. The pressure to go public with a shitty model outweighs the responsibility to the people relying on the search results.

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

              -Upton Sinclair

              Sadly, same as it ever was. You are correct, they already know the answer, so they don’t want to consider the question.

              • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s also the argument that “if we don’t do it, somebody else would,” and I kind of understand that, while I also disagree with it.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I did look up an article about it that basically said the same thing, and while I get “lie” implies malicious intent, I agree with you that fabricate is better than hallucinating.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not lying or hallucinating. It’s describing exactly what it found in search results. There’s an web page with that title from that date. Now the problem is that the web page is pinterest and the title is the result of aggressive SEO. These types of SEO practices are what made Google largely useless for the past several years and an AI that is based on these useless results will be just as useless.

    • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The most damning thing to call it is “inaccurate”. Nothing will drive the average person away from a companies information gathering products faster than associating it with being inaccurate more times than not. That is why they are inventing different things to call it. It sounds less bad to say “my LLM hallucinates sometimes” than it does to say “my LLM is inaccurate sometimes“.

    • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because lies require intent to deceive, which the AI cannot have.

      They merely predict the most likely thing that should next be said, so “hallucinations” is a fairly accurate description

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn’t exist when.he was young and change scares him

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Holy shit your assumption says a lot about you. How do you think AI is going to “help impoverished people live better lives” exactly?

          • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s fascinating to me that you genuinely don’t know, it shows not only do you have no active interest in working to benefit impoverished communities but you have no real knowledge of the conversations surrounding ai - but here you are throwing out your opion with the certainty of a zealot.

            If you had any interest or involvement in any aid or development project relating to the global south you’d be well aware that one of the biggest difficulties for those communities is access to information and education in their first language so a huge benefit of natural language computing would be very obvious to you.

            Also If you followed anything but knee-jerk anti-ai memes to try and develop an understand of this emerging tech you’d have without any doubt been exposed to the endless talking points on this subject, https://oxfordinsights.com/insights/data-and-power-ai-and-development-in-the-global-south/ is an interesting piece covering some of the current work happening on the language barrier problems i mentioned ai helping with.

            • nomous@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              he wants to stop it from helping impoverished people live better lives and all the other advantages simply because it didn’t exist when.he was young and change scares him

              That’s the part I take issue with, the weird probably-projecting assumption about people.

              Have fun with the holier-than-thou moral high ground attitude about AI though, shits laughable.

      • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because LLMs are planet destroying bullshit artists built in the image of their bullshitting creators. They are wasteful and they are filling the internet with garbage. Literally making the apex of human achievement, the internet, useless with their spammy bullshit.

      • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        because the sooner corporate meatheads clock that this shit is useless and doesn’t bring that hype money the sooner it dies, and that’d be a good thing because making shit up doesn’t require burning a square km of rainforest per query

        not that we need any of that shit anyway. the only things these plagiarism machines seem to be okayish at is mass manufacturing spam and disinfo, and while some adderral-fueled middle managers will try to replace real people with it, it will fail flat on this task (not that it ever stopped them)

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it sounds like there are huge gains to be made in energy efficiency instead.

          Energy costs money so datacenters would be glad to invest in better and more energy efficient hardware.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It can be helpful if you know how to use it though.

              I don’t use it myself a lot but quite a few at work use it and are very happy with chatgpt

      • Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because they will only be used my corporations to replace workers, furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies. Jobs will be taken, and there will be no resources for the jobless. The future is darker than bleak should LLMs and AI be allowed to be used indeterminately by corporations.

        • JamesFire@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.

          We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            that won’t happen. technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less, it allowa you to work less for the same output. so you work the same hours but the expected output changes, and your productivity goes up while your wages stay the same.

            • JamesFire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,

              It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?

              • mriormro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                That wasn’t technology. It was the literal spilling of blood of workers and organizers fighting and dying for those rights.

                • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And you think they just did it because?

                  They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?

                • JamesFire@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.

        • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          furthering class divide, ultimately leading to a collapse in countries and economies

          Might be the cynic in me but I don’t think that would be the worst outcome. Maybe it will finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for people to realize that being a highly replaceable worker drone wage slave isn’t really going anywhere for everyone except the top-0.001%.

  • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish we could really press the main point here: Google is willfully foisting their LLM on the public, and presenting it as a useful tool. It is not, which makes them guilty of neglicence and fraud.

    Pichai needs to end up in jail and Google broken up into at least ten companies.

    • limelight79@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe they actually hate the idea of LLMs and are trying to sour the public’s opinion on it to kill it.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, as a chatgpt pro user… what the fuck is google doing to fuck up this bad.

    This is so comically bad i almost have to assume its on purpose? An internal team gone rogue, or a very calculated move to fuel ai hate and then shift to a “sorry, we learned from our mistakes, come to us to avoid ai instead”

    • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s because what Google is doing is just ChatGPT with extra steps. Instead of just letting the AI generate answers based on curated training data, they trained it and then gave it a mission to summarize the contents of their list of unreliable sources.

  • StaySquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sadly there’s really no other search engine with a database as big as Google. We goofed by heavily relying on Google.

    • enleeten@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Kagi is pretty awesome. I never directly use Google search on any of my devices anymore, been on Kagi for going on a year.

      • StaySquared@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting… sadly paid service.

        I use perplexity, I just have to get into the habit of not going straight to google for my searches.

        • Blemgo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I do think it’s worth the money however, especially since it allows you to cutomize your search results by white-/blacklisting sites and making certain sites rank higher or lower based on your direct feedback. Plus, I like their approach to openness and considerations on how to improve searching without bogging down the standard search.

      • padge@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just started the Kagi trial this morning, so far I’m impressed how accurate and fast it is. Do you find 300 searches is enough or do you pay for unlimited?