Doubtful, 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.
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.
@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.
If so, I think that sets an interesting precedent that could be referenced in copyright claims over AI generated art… For instance, if a Midjourney user generating an image of Mickey Mouse meant Disney could sue Midjourney directly…
Japan was (to my knowledge) the first country to officially rule on AI generated images with regards to copyright… They deemed it fair game to use copyrighted material in training, but subject to copyright infringement if the AI generates something too close to copyrighted material. It’ll be interesting to see where other countries weigh in on this issue.
Theoretically, someone has to be considered responsible for what an AI does. Especially now that we’re seeing businesses start using AI for things like talking to customers… If they had full immunity against lawsuits for things their AI says, that’d set a really bad precedent; we’ll just have to see where the line gets drawn.
@Spitfire@borari The unreliability of chatgpt and its propensity to generate lies was discovered on day 1 of it becoming public. OpenAI did not pull the plug. They likely did not care. Making them accountable is basic justice.
Huh….
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.
Doubtful, 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.
@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.
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.
@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”
@bornach
> 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.
@ElectronSoup @borari @Spitfire
If so, I think that sets an interesting precedent that could be referenced in copyright claims over AI generated art… For instance, if a Midjourney user generating an image of Mickey Mouse meant Disney could sue Midjourney directly…
deleted by creator
Japan was (to my knowledge) the first country to officially rule on AI generated images with regards to copyright… They deemed it fair game to use copyrighted material in training, but subject to copyright infringement if the AI generates something too close to copyrighted material. It’ll be interesting to see where other countries weigh in on this issue.
Theoretically, someone has to be considered responsible for what an AI does. Especially now that we’re seeing businesses start using AI for things like talking to customers… If they had full immunity against lawsuits for things their AI says, that’d set a really bad precedent; we’ll just have to see where the line gets drawn.
deleted by creator
@Spitfire @borari The unreliability of chatgpt and its propensity to generate lies was discovered on day 1 of it becoming public. OpenAI did not pull the plug. They likely did not care. Making them accountable is basic justice.