530
Microsoft's Copilot falsely accuses court reporter of crimes he covered
(the-decoder.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
530 points (99.3% liked)
News
23259 readers
3367 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Oh this is going to be good.
I really hope he sues them and establishes case law that companies are 100% responsible for all AI generated content. If we let them get away with this it's only going to get worse from here.
I'm fairly certain something like that has already happened with Canadian Airlines. A person asked about bereavement travel and the AI chat bot claimed one thing and the company refused to honor it. IIRC, the court said the company had to abide by what the chatbot said.
Here's the story.
The actual monetary loss to Air Canada (known affectionately as Fuckstick Flights Inc.) was insignificant, but the PR was bad.
Then again, I can't remember the last time AC had positive press. Before that they forced a guy with cerebral palsy to drag himself off the plane.
JFC. They literally stood there while he struggled. What the actual fuck?
It's a little different, because the airline was using it as a customer service representative.
I am so, so looking forward to the legal quagmire that is pretty much anything involving AI.
Within the context it's presented I 100% agree with this. The airline case the AI was basically replacing a human agent/representative, so they were liable in the same way as if a human had provided the misinformation.
In this case, it's presenting details as fact as if they'd come from legit news sources etc. They should face the same penalty as a news agency would be libel.
Now if it's just an AI NPC in a game going a bit off the rails, that's just entertainment. So long as nobody gets to pull the "we're not really news, just entertainment" bullshit.
I mean, if I could think of anywhere I would least like to pull that kind of nonsense it'd be Germany.
You hope that will be the legal standard? I fear it.
Why? What possible downside is there in holding companies accountable for what they produce?
Existing law already covers that. Libel/slander only applies in cases that it appears you're making a statement of fact. I can for instance say Trump gargles Putin's balls once a month and as long as it's clear from the context that this isn't intended to be a statement of fact then it doesn't qualify as defamation. Companies should be liable for what their AI outputs in the exact same way they're liable for what their employees produce. If they want to not be held liable then they need to make sure their customers are properly informed that what they're viewing might be complete bullshit. This means prominent notifications not a single line buried in paragraph 84 of their EULA.
quite frankly because I have hardly ever seen governments regulating technology having good results; we should mostly be allowed to experiment with technology without governments telling us how to do it, this is how we make human progress
The guy who wrote https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence didn't know about large language models yet but his thoughts apply to them too tbh.
In the common law system (which Germany is not) this is already actionable by defamation torts. It's no different from you installing faulty wiring and burning your neighbor's house down. If you cause damages, you pay for them. Something being digital isn't a magic externality that makes you not responsible.
Lol so fortune cookie companies are liable for fortunes now?
Get real.
If a fortune cookie company was printing inciteful and defamatory fortunes, then yes, they would be responsible for those.
If they said "these fortunes are real and will come true" they would be liable for fraud.
Microsoft's argument that they are not liable must include the idea that their Copilot AI is not expected to deliver true statements in its summaries. That's clearly not what the purpose of the summary is.
I mean, if Copilot can't be expected to provide truthful information, then why are they passing it off as a helpful AI assistant? What's the point of using it if it's just going to spew lies and slander? As some kind of satire generator? If so, why don't they market it as such?