this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
74 points (93.0% liked)

Technology

61129 readers
2706 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
enu
technopagan
L4s
74
In motion to dismiss, chatbot platform Character AI claims it is protected by the First Amendment (techcrunch.com)
submitted 2 days ago by cm0002 to c/technology
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If they don't want responsibility, they need to very publicly say they're providing it without any warranty or implication of it solving any particular problem, which is why FOSS licenses put that into their terms.

Completely agree. Every single AI should come with this disclaimer. Because while it can solve all kinds of problems, it's definitely not going to do it correctly every time, no matter what. Which is really the whole point of what I said.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Precisely. Yet so many LLMs make outrageous claims, or at least fail to make the limitations obvious.

My point is that it's not on the user to see past the BS, it's on the provider of the service. The company's argument is that they're not responsible because computer code is protected by the first amendment. I think that misses the whole issue, which is that users may not be made sufficiently aware of the limitations and dangers of the service.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I service can only do so much. Some folks are just dumb or mentally unwell. The question is did they do enough to communicate the limitations of AI. Free speech is the wrong argument. I think we are in agreement other than it sounds like maybe you are assuming they didn't communicate that well enough and I'm assuming they did. That's what the court case should be about.