As usual with AI customer interaction, I have to ask who is liable for misleading advertising or unmet promises? The advertiser who isn't really in control of the chatbot, or OpenAI?
(Law on this goes all the way back to Carbolic Smoke Ball)
Liability... come on what's this pesky detail when it's an arm race with China (or whatever the weekly scapegoat is), don't you want the good guys to win? /s
Check out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unaccountability_Machine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unaccountability_Machine on this topic, available at all good bookstores near you.
Just wanted to say thanks for this rec, I'll be picking it up. Unaccountability - generally, everywhere in society, the workplace, government etc. - has been on my mind a lot recently.
Well to date when this has come up it’s been the company that put the AI in from of their customers that’s held liable in the first instance. See Air Canada case where an AI made up non existent policies that courts ruled Air Canada even had to honor.
Naturally then the company could turn around and sue the maker of the AI for damages and this is the bit that’s less tested to date.
But it’s clear the answer isn’t “nobody” is liable. So if this AI marketing widget makes up false claims about a product that’s going to be a big problem for companies that put an AI in front of their customers.
Tech companies have not had to answer to the law for a long time. We are now seeing that tech companies straight up break into each others servers and nobody is charged with any crime for it. I think it is safe to say that crime is legal for rich tech companies.
So who is liable? Nobody. This is a big tech company, to which laws do not apply.
Tech companies have gotten away with many things in Europe too. Case in point TEMU is allowed to brake basic consumer protection laws throughout the continent probably because it is considered a tech company. Other cases include Spotify which is allowed to break media laws because it is considered a tech company (ditto Facebook).
The fines given to tech companies is only nominal and really only a spectacle. There should be consequences for breaking laws, these fines have just turned into the cost of doing business and are ultimately just payed for by the consumers who pay by watching more ads or paying higher subscription fees.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
(Law on this goes all the way back to Carbolic Smoke Ball)
utopiah · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
It’s not the advertising companies of course, as you said they don’t control the system.
And it cannot be the models, because they don’t have personhood.
So, I guess it’s on nobody? Funny how those things happen to work, uh
/s
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
nlawalker · · focus · HN ↗
cmiles8 · · focus · HN ↗
Naturally then the company could turn around and sue the maker of the AI for damages and this is the bit that’s less tested to date.
But it’s clear the answer isn’t “nobody” is liable. So if this AI marketing widget makes up false claims about a product that’s going to be a big problem for companies that put an AI in front of their customers.
bluepeter · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
runarberg · · focus · HN ↗
So who is liable? Nobody. This is a big tech company, to which laws do not apply.
BadBadJellyBean · · focus · HN ↗
runarberg · · focus · HN ↗
The fines given to tech companies is only nominal and really only a spectacle. There should be consequences for breaking laws, these fines have just turned into the cost of doing business and are ultimately just payed for by the consumers who pay by watching more ads or paying higher subscription fees.
Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe · · focus · HN ↗