If companies can be held liable (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies) for the output of non-deterministic software, isn't this just a soft ban on the deployment of non-deterministic software?

> (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies)

If you sell food, in a food stall, labeled as food and you add a disclaimer that it is toxic and will make you sick. You are still selling toxic food and you are liable for it.

Google is pretending to give answers to your questions. They offer you a service about answering questions. And then they add a disclaimer "we do not answer questions just write bullshit". That is still fraud and Google should be liable for it.

> isn't this just a soft ban on the deployment of non-deterministic software?

Tetris is non-deterministic and it is not banned like millions of other programs. I do not follow you.

If Google’s AI overviews used a deterministic LLM the ruling would hold just the same. This has nothing to do with non-determinism.

If your software deterministically produces incorrect output for some inputs, you’re liable the same as if it did it non-deterministically.

If you read those AI overview, it is not non-deterministic, it is conclusions, claims, statements.

Where did it say the liability only applied to non-deterministic software?

LLMs are deterministic, they are only non-deterministic when you add a temperature.

no, just a ban on using non-deterministic software for situations where deterministic responses are expected.

What to do if the software automatically and wrongly libels you on a public search engine?

Honestly I can understand the ruling, but the side effects might be severe.