- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or # to comment.
“If a human spokesperson made these false allegations on Google’s behalf, a significant award of punitive damages would be warranted. Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls.”
That’s the entire point of AI. Companies know it sucks but they can launder their irresponsible decisions through it.
Not if we have a government that actually protects us, they wouldnt.
That would require competence and testicles.
1.5 million? That’s a rounding error at Google, they’ll still try to evade responsibility but that dollar amount is meaningless to them.
It’s all about setting a precedent.
The precedent that fucking around is going to hurt is what we need set.
Unfortunately jury trials set no precedent, even if they award damages. So Google can afford to lose because it’s almost always a jury trial.
Not a “legal” precedent. But a precedent that they can be sued, and they can lose. Causing more people to sue…
they could always be sued. the standing of the plaintiffs can (and given the defendant, will) always be challenged. some of it is fundamental rights, some of it’s procedural wrangling.
Yes they could always be sued. But people tend to shy away from sueing big companies like google. Seeing someone else win, makes it feel possible. Plus it shows a strategy for winning. Thus increasing the number of people trying for a payday.
Oh right sorry fuck. I get pedantic as fuck when I talk law (because the field itself is where you go to pedant professionally) and I’m try to get better at that. I would use the word momentum to describe what you are describing because “precedent” is a term of art (it has a very specific meaning in a the legal field) but there are others that would work too.
I have recently been thinking about the family members who were attorneys and judges who passed away. Maybe I need to go hang out at the courthouse for a bit.
IMO the precedent needs to be a proportion or percentage based item, not an arbitrary number. Something big enough to massively hurt, like 30% of this or last years’ post tax profits will be fined and Alphabet and all subsidiaries will be deemed ineligible for any tax waivers, deductions, or credits for a number of years to be determined by a jury, no less than 1 no greater than 100.
Don’t think you can get that from a civil suit. But I don’t disagree.
Add a handful of zeroes.
It’s also probably in CAD so close to just $1 million
I am sure that google will bring up that it has a disclaimer about how AI can make mistakes. But really, that’s the equivalent of saying “no offense” before you say something offensive.
Fiddler, diddler, no biggie right
Gah, beat me to it! It’s impossible to have an original idea on the internet!
