He argues that we just can't continue to let businesses getting away with blaming AI for mistakes they publish, because:
> To allow businesses to hide behind the excuse of faulty AI in those same circumstances would be a massive handout to companies, and would introduce disastrous incentives for corporate misbehavior. Why hire human writers, lawyers or doctors when AIs are not only cheaper, but also absolve employers whenever they make a mistake?
There are historical precedents for similar things. I hope some effective means of curtailing such behavior can be devised.
Try it - google your name, name of your company or "how to do X in software Y" and you'll see for yourself.
I see it's because you need to click the "show more"/expand button to see that disclaimer. -- Seems silly design to hide the disclaimer like that.
So it seems like Google doesn't have any kind of "lock in" for facts, where they can detect these outlier responses and kill them. It seems a meta-analysis of responses would allow them to cull many false replies.
This info is endorsed by @rossmanngroup and hosted on YouTube so seems legit.
I could understand if it was drug smuggling, but maple syrup? That crossed the line for me.
I hope Louis can pull himself together and come back from this.
Of course if you press it, it immediately states “there is nothing of public record stating this”
In all fairness, fake reviews and just people lying on the internet has always been a thing. The fact that gemini once in a while gets something wrong is just not very upsetting anymore IMO.
Strongly disagree. Fighting against online trash in all forms is a worthwhile endeavour.
How about citing legal cases that don't exist? I would say this is maybe closer to hallucination if an LLM is doing it. Maybe less so if a human is and is not experience some mental instability. What creates that distinction?
But in any case, they aren't mistakes. LLMs are not trained to produce true output; they are trained to produce likely output. "Likely" happens to overlap with "true" a lot, but not always. If you ask Claude why aeroplanes fly it will still spew some nonsense about curved wings. Very likely output; not really true.
That is not what google search is promoting. They claim to be search. That is not what AI companies are promoting and selling.
To successfully sue for libel, the defamed party generally must prove five key elements:
* Publication: The pamphlet was seen or read by a third party other than the person making the claims.
* Identification: The false statements clearly identify or point to a specific person or organization.
* Falsity: The claims presented as factual are objectively untrue. (Truth is an absolute defense to defamation).
* Defamatory Meaning: The statements are severe enough to damage the subject's reputation, expose them to public ridicule, or cause financial loss.
* Fault: The person distributing the flyer acted with intent or negligence. Public figures must prove "actual malice," while private citizens generally only need to prove negligence.
In my analogy, the webpage is a pamphlet/flyer, the LLM is the author (ghostwriter?), and the person at fault is the website owner.
In this case its likely google that would be responsible for putting up the fake information. There's been some court cases around this already
The last human finger that pressed the button, and anyone employing them to press the button. The real question is how much intent transfers. If you point a gun at a person and the trigger goes off without you pulling it, how liable are you? If you're pointing it at the ground and it does the same and the shrapnel flies about, how liable are you for that? If a loaded gun cooks off in a burning car and a bullet goes flying, how liable are you for that?
If you give an AI agent free reign to your computer and ask it to set your schedule, and it ends up sending classified weapons plans that happened to be on your computer to the Chinese Communist Party, how much should you be held culpable?
With novel technologies we typically answer this conservatively, and say that the person running the agent (or holding/owning the gun) has full civil liability for its actions regardless of their intent, but may limit criminal exposure.
We would (should) take an especially dire and suspicious view of anybody that has anything material to gain from using the tool irresponsibly or maliciously; We can demonstrate incentive/motive even if we cannot prove their intent. The law here is principally a deterrent against somebody that tells an agent "Win me this election" or "Build this product", and the agent then proceeds to hire a hitman to kill their opponent, or steal their rival's technology through industrial espionage. My fear is that the way things are going, it's a completely ineffective deterrent. My guess is a lot of people need to be killed by AI agents before we take it seriously and limit its use as a fig leaf.
Imagine how would you feel if Amazon made up descriptions of all products, claiming features they didn't support and you ordered it... would you be ok with it, I bet not.
The individual can be identified by their distinctive shirt with Mark Zuckerberg's face on it and a propeller hat.
They are also a known carrier of rabies. Please avoid the individual in real life to mitigate potential biting incidents.
It's not, and the problem is Google shoving those summaries in everyone's face while using the cheapest, lowest model for it. If they cannot scale one that would produce more accurate results, they should not be doing it at all. The product is not ready, and it's a terrible look for them, not that anyone seriously believes they can produce any kind of decent LLM model at this time of course.