this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
1103 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
85274 readers
4389 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly this is all the reasoning you need to infer that Google should be liable. Google alone has editorial control over the summary their AI generates, not the outside sources used to generate these statements, ergo Google should be held liable for that.
... And you know that's true when the best Google could muster as a defence is to say that people shouldn't be blindly trusting the AI, which ironically means even Google thinks their AI is full of shit.
But unfortunately for Google, not only does the court not buy that defence, but it would appear that's contrary to how most people use the feature.
I seriously hope so. Its about time companies started taking proper liability for the actions of their LLMs.
Every “AI” company should be (reasonably) liable for what their tools say. How is this even a novel idea?
If a newspaper accidentaly prints false information, they have to publish a correction and might pay a fine. But if they print a front page article about making a pipe bomb, then the editor would probably get sentenced.
This approach would be perfectly fine with LLMs. I understand the nature of the technology, but if they cannot guarantee the quality of the output, then the product is just not ready yet, and we are currently doing unpaid testing.
And if Google complains that it's on the pieces of info they got from 3th parties that were wrong and name them, then the 3th parties are able to request compensation for using that info.
Exactly. Can't have it both ways.
If Google want to claim the liability falls with the source's its pulling from, then it should be taking explicit permission to cite these sources and be paying them.
Otherwise it's an AI-powered editorial, and that's on Google.
Though personally I'd be happy with the entire system being scrapped, as it only serves to fuck over small publishers and people's ability to search for and be critical of information.
Except that this will fuck over small companies. Because if we follow this reasoning, the next step is to debate what is AI and what's not. And the poor folk lose that battle because of legal fees.
I mean, hey, tell me how an automated summary is not AI. Argue that. Give me a clear legal standard... Easy to hand wave, hard to get right.
for liability it doesn't matter whether small company has written the summary themselves or generated it. they already had liability for what they say.
what small companies are giving users of their search engine ai overviews? why would you argue ai summaries are not ai? what the muddy waters is going on here...?
Does it use an LLM to generate the summary. Yes or no. This is a binary. It is incredibly easy to define. It's almost laughable that you think this is a problem.
I fail to understand why it should be bad for small companies.
In my experience most small companies don't have public AI summaries. And even if they do i still think it's their obligation to check what they make public.
In the not so distant future just about every site will have AI summarization or QnA as a core part.
Instead of searching through endless documentation you ask AI to trawl and give you the answer. This is undeniably useful. But if they give the wrong answer once and suddenly become liable, that's a potential risk.
There's a difference between you making use of a tool and you publishing the results of that tool.
Why should a vendor be able to make false claims about a product with impunity?
It's very obviously not even the tiniest bit useful and, in fact, is simply a huge liability that could be done safer and cheaper by a person.
How is it “undeniably useful” if it has the potential of giving wrong answers?
Also and perhaps more importantly, are these the lengths people go to avoid reading? If so, we are doomed.
A potential risk that any company implementing an AI for something as simple as a Q&A should be aware of prior to doing that.
If they don't want the liability, then just don't use AI for public facing functions. Its not difficult.
Hopefully not, and this ruling goes some way to ensuring sense prevails. It's a little different if the LLM providing the "AI" summarization has been trained exclusively on the contents of the site; that ensures that only the work of the site authors is used in generating the summary, which means it's their words, and also probably less likely to hallucinate.
I deny it. The results of an LLM being used to answer a question are far too often wrong to ever be trusted. Sometimes the errors are obvious, much more often they are subtle and harder to spot, but delivered with certainty none-the-less. This ruling ensures that the ones providing the LLM summary are held liable, in the same way they would be if a human wrote the same summary.
Correct, and that is as it should be. Apply the same logic to a human written piece and you will see that.
In the not so distant future you use your own personal AI to do the trawling and if that thing gets it wrong that's on you or the company that made it.
I have a feeling that the megacorporation's AI generating false statements about smaller businesses that effectively drives customership away from them harms a lot more small businesses way more than AI-powered businesses being held to account for what their AI states as fact publically.
(And that's not even counting the harm Google's AI summaries are already doing to small publishers by driving traffic away from the very websites its using as source material.)
If a company doesn't want the liability associated with a rogue agent making false statements, then I've got news for you - they don't have to use AI. Literally nobody is forcing small private businesses to use AI for anything.
And what @MyButSmellsBat@feddit.org has said is entirely true. Most small companies won't have an AI, and those that do should still be held accountable for their AI's public statements.
Unnecessary, in my view. If you use a tool to produce something, and that something breaks a law, then you are liable, not the tool. Doesn't matter whether it's a hammer or an AI. If a human employed by Google had written the incorrect summary on Google's behalf, then Google would still be liable (the difference is that the human writer might also be individually liable, depending on local law).
Search engines received various kinds of legal immunity in many jurisdictions because they were only presenting information written by third parties outside their control. These summaries are not third-party content, and if they are libelous, the responsibility falls squarely on Google.
I agree and I apply that to gun manufacturers.