We need to ban internet for humans under 18. There is nothing of value on the internet that can't be provided with a few cds worth of text and low resolution imagery, maybe a gig or so. Better yet, a decent set of old school encyclopedias is fine, and give the kids a dumb phone with parent white listed phone numbers and the kids have all they need.
If, instead of the AI summary, the First Nation had come across some little on-line forum where angry users where denouncing "Ashley MacIsaac" as a sex offender, and (just as with the AI) the First Nation had neglected to verify which Ashley MacIsaac it was - then who would be facing consequences for that?
OTOH - yes, I get that "the AI said" is the new "dog ate my homework" excuse, for ignoble humans trying to dodge any responsibility for their own lazy incompetence.
"Some little on-line forum" with a few angry users is not really comparable to a mega-corp with billions of users.
Lawyers could but are unlikely to go after a few misguided individual users for slander. As they say, you can't get blood out of a rock. Mega-corp is a much more tempting target.
Legal liability for bad AI is just getting started but I expect lawyers are giddy with anticipation.
Okay, let's say the misguided individual users are posting on Facebook - a mega-corp with billions of users. And 13-digit market cap, to tempt the lawyers.
How does that play out? IANAL, but I'm thinking Facebook says "Sorry, but Section 230 covers our ass" - and that's about it. Still no consequences.
does section 230 cover the AI in this case? For misguided individual I doubt you are going to get a cancelled concert off of some rando troll to be honest but IANL either lol
Section 230 allows websites to host user-generated content without being treated as the publisher of that content.
But AI slop is not "user generated content" --- it is content that the web site itself is generating with AI and publishing. As such, they become wholly responsible for the content (in my opinion).
There is no inconsistency here. Whoever generates and posts the slander is accountable.
If individuals on Facebook post it, the individuals are responsible under US law section 230.
But if AI owned and operated by Facebook posts it, Facebook is responsible (in my opinion). There is no one else to blame for it.
Once corps start being held legally liable for their AI generated slop, I wouldn't be surprised if they start banning this "new technology" over liability concerns.
LLM based AI is inherently flawed and unreliable and everyone with only half a brain knows it. Making use of technology that is widely known to be flawed for any sort of "serious" work is a textbook example of negligence. And slander can be "serious". Lawyers live for this sort of thing.
> But if AI owned and operated by Facebook posts it, Facebook is responsible (in my opinion). There is no one else to blame for it.
> Once corps start being held legally liable for their AI generated slop...
While I personally agree with your ideal - in the current legal, regulatory, and political environment, I see precious little chance of any such corporation actually being held responsible for the output of its AI.
your alerts seemed to have worked if you got one alert right? I used to work with situation alerts, and the "one alert" thing is a trap, you miss one and you're done. I coded alert recaps, alert reminders, custom scheduling etc etc, if you have opportunity for getting alerts, don't write them off because you got just a single alert, stop counting on perfectly response to a single alert and lean into multiple alerts wherever possible. take care of the human tasked with responding to alertable situations, we're imperfect error prone blobs of protoplasm lol
The thing is, market share reports don't show evidence that Mozilla is doing really important work. From reading the comments here, firefox's literal reason for existing is ad blocking and "not chrome". Compatibility with websites is on the decline, websites breaking on firefox are on the increase. Rust is one of the few positives that I can see yet Mozilla has transferred trademarks and "infrastructure assets" to a new rust foundation of some sort that seems to mean that they're now independent of Mozilla.
The internet market makers think that ad blocking is antisocial, so in fact mozilla's firefox only reason for being is that its not the internets favorite browser which is a hell of a mission statement to offer, but thats as generous an assessment as I can make with those fellows, hell I still use firefox out of habit but I always keep a chrome install for the times firefox just doesn't work, but even then I'm just lazy and even when running firefox I've never installed an ad blocker which seems to increasingly be firefox's reason for existence.
Key management seems to be as important as backups but I understand that something so small (an encryption key) could seem unimportant because database backups are so big lol but they really do share important attributes (do not lose your keys, do not lose your data, do not expose your keys, do not expose your data, etc etc)
When I get bogus products from online ordering I just assume I got ripped off and that's that. A majority of my orders come through though so its not all bad.
seems like a weakness for these generators, if you can prompt them into producing copyright violations then that seems to be pretty risky for the folks running them.
I remember early on in my last term of employment, I merely made a jest about lack of specs and the level of butthurt from my boss really just was an early signal my dismal future in this position.
reply