From IB Times:
Artificial intelligence company OpenAI could be on the verge of facing the world’s first defamation lawsuit over the content generated by its AI chatbot, ChatGPT. An Australian Mayor has threatened to file a defamation lawsuit against ChatGPT, accusing the AI-based chatbot of making some false claims.
. . . .
Regional Australian mayor Brian Hood is planning to sue OpenAI, the company behind the popular AI chatbot, if it doesn’t correct the false claims made by ChatGPT. Apparently, the AI bot said that the Australian mayor had served time in prison on bribery charges.
The politician is understandably worried about his reputation online since people have started asking him about ChatGPT’s false claims. If the mayor decides to deal with this in court, then OpenAI could end up facing its first-ever defamation lawsuit against the AI chatbot. To recap, Hood was elected Mayor of the town of Hepburn Shire in November 2022.
Hood became concerned about his online reputation when he found out that ChatGPT had falsely accused him of being involved in a foreign bribery scandal. This early 2000s scandal centered on a Reserve Bank of Australia subsidiary. Although Hood worked for the subsidiary during this time, he was the person who informed authorities about the aforesaid bribes, according to a report by GizmoChina.
. . . .
Aside from this, the report claims Hood never faced any criminal charges. Another report by News18 suggests Hood’s lawyers sent a letter of concern to the AI company on March 21, urging them to revise the incorrect shred of misinformation. Hood’s lawyers have requested the company to either remove the misreported information or face a potential lawsuit.
Moreover, OpenAI has 28 days to change the inaccurate information. The AI firm is currently mum on Hood’s legal letter. It will be interesting to see whether Hood decides to follow through with the lawsuit, becoming the first individual to sue the company behind ChatGPT over false claims. A partner at Hood’s law firm Gordon Legal, James Naughton, pointed out that Hood is an elected official and his “reputation is central to his role.”
Link to the rest at IB Times
And then there’s Google:
https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/googles-going-to-scrape-the-entire-public-internet-to-train-its-ai-tools-and-theres-nothing-we-can-do-about-it
“Google’s latest privacy policy update isn’t necessarily surprising, but it does also set off some alarm bells. Particularly for those who already have their doubts over the AI revolution.
“As highlighted by Gizmodo the latest statement on the search giant’s privacy policy contains a key update relating to AI:
“For example, we use publicly available information to help train Google’s AI models and build products and features like Google Translate, Bard, and Cloud AI capabilities.”
“The most recent policy prior to this only made mention of “language models” and specifically, Google Translate. The latest update makes it clear that anything public on the Internet Google is going to be feeding into its AI tools like Bard.
“Is this surprising? Not at all. Google is the gatekeeper to the Internet, especially for publishers like us and our parent company. Playing the game of getting your content to rank well in Google is exhausting, but also critical. And now all of that content is going to be fed into Google AI. All of it.”
“Until (sic) it’s technically not illegal, maybe Google is just going to do what Google does. Which is whatever it wants.
More at the source. They are not happy. Tough.
But at least Google is being honest, for a change.
They are actively inviting folks to sue them and get it over with.
Probably a good move: that way they’ll quickly know which countries to invest in so they get “AI” tech and which will be “protected” from it.
Not that I actively go looking for this stuff but it pops up wnd it’s interesting.
While Google proclaims it’s scraping everything online, OpenAI disabled its latest feature, Search with Bing, because people were asking for printouts of paywalled pages. (Oops!)
So the entire browser feature is off indefinitely while they figure out how to keep users outside paywalls.
However, that does not mean they aren’t going to scrape it for their AI database. Or ever admit what they do or don’t access. But we now know they *can* get through paywalls on the fly.
I’ll need to stock up on my preferred munchies, though not necessarily this brand:
https://www.amazon.com/Goya-Foods-Plantain-Chips-Ounce/dp/B009UQZKTQ/ref=sxin_17_pa_sp_search_thematic_sspa?content-id=amzn1.sym.749943ff-94bd-4679-8f03-3b5488f65fae%3Aamzn1.sym.749943ff-94bd-4679-8f03-3b5488f65fae&crid=2ZYRAS7G1NU6D&cv_ct_cx=plantain+chip&keywords=plantain+chip&pd_rd_i=B009UQZKTQ&pd_rd_r=8d6eb3e6-c2c5-4ede-8f9b-f4c3f8643a50&pd_rd_w=X5WSN&pd_rd_wg=suJBt&pf_rd_p=749943ff-94bd-4679-8f03-3b5488f65fae&pf_rd_r=BPJ0DMDDGMNRSCP1C8V5&qid=1688480248&rdc=1&sbo=RZvfv%2F%2FHxDF%2BO5021pAnSA%3D%3D&sprefix=plantain%2Caps%2C255&sr=1-3-2b34d040-5c83-4b7f-ba01-15975dfb8828-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9zZWFyY2hfdGhlbWF0aWM&psc=1
Let loose the hounds of law! 😀
Trader Joe’s has pretty good plantain chips 🙂 My kids call them monkey chips because of monkey pictures on the bag: https://www.traderjoes.com/home/products/pdp/plantain-chips-097208
Do they have the garlic flavor variety?
Just plain, but pretty good and affordable ($2 for 6 oz). TJ’s also has sweet plantain chips ($2 for 5.3 oz).
Good price indeed.
LAYS’ and FILLERS’ PLATANUTRES go for that at Walmart.
The sweet chips don’t move fast down here, mostly its plain salted and garlic.
While we’re watching the AI follies pay out all over (The EU is already putting shackles on the “newfangled stuff” to further cripple their tech sector.) there’s these two authors suing OpenAI for (unverified, theoretical) scanning of their books via a (theoretical, unverified) pirate torrent database.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/openai-sued-by-authors-alleging-chatgpt-trained-on-their-writing/
Dunno, but considering the (lack of) quality of chatbot fiction I don’t think associating your work with it is a good marketing move.
I wonder whether Australia has anything like the “public figure” precedent in its defamation cases. I’m sure that this would not fly in the US, as malice would be impossible to prove.