points by Roark66 3 days ago | 0 comments
I think such liability as "someone talks to the chatbot, gets wrong reply and poisons themselves" could be disclaimer by such conditions: "Our chat is unsuitable to discuss topics X, Y and Z. If you choose to discuss them anyway you're doing it at your own risk.
But this would require an admission of limitations of the technology.
Do people sue Google if search links to a page that has misleading info that results in someone taking a wrong drug? Nope.
Do we sue the browser maker when the info on a given Web page is malicious? Also no.
So, I don't understand why we treat chatbot providers any different. Everyone should be expected not to believe a word they say without corroboration.
You've narrowed the Google example down to them having a link in their index as a search result. People can already sue for keeping links to certain sites/data (pirate sites, personal data etc.) Somewhat closer for comparison, you could already sue Google if they misrepresented the links or content provided by the search, if it differed significantly from the site.
You could already sue the browser for misrepresenting/modifying the info of a given web page, and/or injecting malware. They didn't create the website or content, we all know that.
You can sue any company who is the creator/owner of information. Chatbots are technically creating new information, so whilst a grey area from purposeful human misinformation, the companies are far closer to owner/proprietor of information than the other examples.