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?
> 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.
@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”
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
> 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
@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”