Suing ChatGPT for defamation feels like suing a calculator for bank fraud
@caseynewton Feels like sueing a calculator company for failing to perform basic math properly in a hard to detect manner.
@DuncanWatson @caseynewton On the contrary. The calculator in this analogy does math perfectly.
Just because people put in bad input or don't like the results doesn't mean it's wrong.
The output categorically fits the expected rules which are advertised, which is to be grammatically correct, not factually correct.
@LouisIngenthron I wonder if I stood on the corner with a sign around my neck saying 'grammatically correct', what could I get away with saying?
@Iwillyeah If you include the whole bit, "Grammatically correct, not factually correct", then quite a lot, actually. Context matters, which is why, for example, South Park is able to get away with what it does. Defamation in the United States requires, among other things, a false statement of fact.
So, if you preface your speech with "this may not be true", you're no longer making statements of fact, in context.
Your sandwich board would essentially be serving the same purpose as a disclaimer at the beginning of a comedy program.
@LouisIngenthron South Park can get away with it because it is satire, which is protected. Libel works under the notion that what is said about someone is plausible. Chatgpt does not guarantee accuracy, but it does trade off plausibility, which is a problem when the lies are so damaging to reputation. In fairness, you must know yourself that if chapgpt called you a rapist, made up sources to support it and just left that out into the world, that could not be allowed to stand.
@Iwillyeah Yes, South Park is satire. But *why* is satire protected? Because the context and nature of humor prevents it from being legally considered to be statements of fact. Same here. It's a tech demo toy, not an oracle.
And no, that wouldn't bother me, because I understand that ChatGPT doesn't even understand the concept of 'facts'. So, I assume falsity as a baseline. And, honestly, I think a lot less of anyone foolish enough to believe anything a chatbot tells them.
@LouisIngenthron luckily for the person suing, the quality of intelligence of the person hearing the defamatory statement is not at issue, merely that the statement is damaging to reputation. The other qualifier is that it is plausible. No more than AI, a person is not 'guaranteed to be accurate', but if they say something plausible, it's defamation, even without a guarantee of accuracy on the part of the speaker. Did the bit preface the statement with 'I might be wrong but...'?