Could that be a case of defamation (chatgpt/whatever is damaging your reputation and causing monetary injury)?

heavyset_go 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Companies don't own the AI outputs, but I wonder if they could be found to be publishers of AI content they provide. I really doubt it, though.

I expect courts will go out of their way to not answer that question or just say no.

▲

pjc50 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I wonder if they could be found to be publishers of AI content they provide.

I don't see how it could be otherwise - who else is the publisher?

I'm waiting for a collision of this with, say, English libel law or German "impressum" law. I'm fairly sure the libel issue is already being resolved with regexes on input or output for certain names.

The real question of the rest of the 21st century is: high trust or low trust? Do we start holding people and corporations liable for lying about things, or do we retreat to a world where only information you get from people you personally know can be trusted and everything else has to be treated with paranoia? Because the latter is much less productive.

	▲	heavyset_go 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't see how it could be otherwise - who else is the publisher? I agree, I just don't see courts issuing restrictions on this gold rush any time soon. Platforms want S230-like protections for everything, and I think they'll get them for their AI products not because it's right, but because we currently live in hell and that makes the most sense. To answer your latter question: there's a lot of value in destroying people's ability to trust, especially formally trusted institutions. We aren't the ones that capture that value, though.

▲

hsbauauvhabzb 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Good luck litigating multi billion dollar companies