1611
submitted 5 months ago by nifty@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dultas@lemmy.world 90 points 5 months ago

Could this be grounds for CVS to sue Google? Seems like this could harm business if people think CVS products are less trustworthy. And Google probably can't find behind section 230 since this is content they are generating but IANAL.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 44 points 5 months ago

Iirc cases where the central complaint is AI, ML, or other black box technology, the company in question was never held responsible because "We don't know how it works". The AI surge we're seeing now is likely a consequence of those decisions and the crypto crash.

I'd love CVS try to push a lawsuit though.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 31 points 5 months ago

In Canada there was a company using an LLM chatbot who had to uphold a claim the bot had made to one of their customers. So there's precedence for forcing companies to take responsibility for what their LLMs says (at least if they're presenting it as trustworthy and representative)

[-] LordPassionFruit@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago

This was with regards to Air Canada and its LLM that hallucinated a refund policy, which the company argued they did not have to honour because it wasn't their actual policy and the bot had invented it out of nothing.

An important side note is that one of the cited reasons that the Court ruled in favour of the customer is because the company did not disclose that the LLM wasn't the final say in its policy, and that a customer should confirm with a representative before acting upon the information. This meaning that the the legal argument wasn't "the LLM is responsible" but rather "the customer should be informed that the information may not be accurate".

I point this out because I'm not so sure CVS would have a clear cut case based on the Air Canada ruling, because I'd be surprised if Google didn't have some legalese somewhere stating that they aren't liable for what the LLM says.

[-] shinratdr@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 months ago

But those end up being the same in practice. If you have to put up a disclaimer that the info might be wrong, then who would use it? I can get the wrong answer or unverified heresay anywhere. The whole point of contacting the company is to get the right answer; or at least one the company is forced to stick to.

This isn’t just minor AI growing pains, this is a fundamental problem with the technology that causes it to essentially be useless for the use case of “answering questions”.

They can slap as many disclaimers as they want on this shit; but if it just hallucinates policies and incorrect answers it will just end up being one more thing people hammer 0 to skip past or scroll past to talk to a human or find the right answer.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 5 months ago

But it has to be clearly presented. Consumer law and defamation law has different requirements on disclaimers

[-] Meansalladknifehands@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago

Yeah the legalise happens to be in the back pocket of sundar pichai. ???

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

"We don't know how it works but released it anyway" is a perfectly good reason to be sued when you release a product that causes harm.

[-] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago

I would love if lawsuits brought the shit that is ai down. It has a few uses to be sure but overall it's crap for 90+% of what it's used for.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 5 months ago

iirc alaska airlines had to pay

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 3 points 5 months ago

That was their own AI. If CVS' AI claimed a recall, it could be a problem.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 5 months ago

So will the google AI be held responsible for defaming CVS?

Spoiler alert- they won’t.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 months ago

The crypto crash? Idk if you've looked at Crypto recently lmao

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

Current froth doesn't erase the previous crash. It's clearly just a tulip bulb. Even tulip bulbs were able to be traded as currency for houses and large purchases during tulip mania. How much does a great tulip bulb cost now?

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works -5 points 5 months ago

67k, only barely away from it's ATH

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

67k what? In USD right? Tell us when buttcoin has its own value.

this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
1611 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59161 readers
2086 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS