Anyone know if this ruling applies to answers generated by AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT/Gemini/Claude?

All three have the ability to perform a web search, then compose a reply based on the search results. Pretty much the exact thing that Google AI Overview does. This ruling may make them liable for false answers.

▲

Kina 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Pretty much the exact thing that Google AI Overview does.

No, the article implies the court’s logic is that the AI search results are presented as search results and that’s a big part of why they are liable. It seems like the court (again, according to the article) does not find the disclaimers that Google has slapped on the AI results compelling because again, it chose to represent these as a summary of search results and it is aware of the failure rate.

> The court also found that the AI overview made claims "that are not even made in the search results." None of the linked sources drew any connection between the plaintiffs and the shady companies the AI mentioned. The court called these "the defendant's own statements."

> Google built the AI, Google offered it to users, so Google owns what it produces, "because it alone has influence over the AI's offering and the algorithms with which the AI operates."

Google does not, as a general rule, control the actual content of search results, but usually there’s a distinction between the ranking and presentation of the results vs. the actual content. In this case, the court is basically saying, “You sold this to people as a search summary, you know it might be full of crap and you chose to do it anyway. No, you don’t get to claim the equivalent of a US safe harbor defense.”

▲

sandeepkd 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You sold this to people as a search summary, you know it might be full of crap and you chose to do it anyway

There is a subtle difference in stating it as a search summary compared to an opinionated answer. Most users are always going to treat it as a response from google instead of search results where the user is still responsible for understanding and come up with their own interpretation.

This is probably the right step in some sense to make one liable for their statements/assertions.

▲

incompatible 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apparently, if they were search results, they wouldn't have been liable, since there's an exception to defamation laws. Without any exception, defamation is defamation, it doesn't matter how it's presented.

	▲	Kina 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes, if it was that a search result returned a defamatory article that Google had nothing to do with outside of indexing, it is likely they would not be found liable. The court is clearly trying to make a distinction that the AI search results are produced by Google and thus they can make an editorial decision on whether to publish it despite knowing that it is potentially defamatory.
	▲	asdfaoeu 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Google does remove defamatory results I believe at least partially in response to being sued. However there is a distinction if they have been informed it is defamatory.

▲

asdfaoeu 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This ruling was about search clearly, however, there's definitely ways implications for chatbots too.

▲

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

layer8 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If an AI chatbot would consistently defame a particular company, I’m pretty sure they would be liable too.

▲

8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

incompatible 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't.