AI Being Sued

-

 An Australian mayor is suing ChatGTP for defamation.  Brian Hood is the mayor that says if one researches his name, ChatGTP said he served time for a bribery scheme at a bank in which he was employed.  In fact, he uncovered the scheme and had the perpetrators arrested.  But can he sue AI for false and damaging information against his reputation for either libel or slander?  

I am watching this case closely, because it is the first time AI has been sued.  It's almost like asking if one lusts for AI women, is it lust if the women don't exist?  In fact there is a lot about AI we just don't know.  Yes, it's the creators of AI that are being sued, but what if the owners go back and correct the information their AI gave?  We just don't know and this is a case brought forward in Australia.  Could AI be sued in courts for a likeness of someone that has done harm to one's reputation if AI is the creator of that content?

Here in the US where lawsuits are a dime a dozen we just don't know.  But this case has a world audience watching very closely.  AI presents a whole set of legal issues that are largely unexplored by courts all over the world.  Could a conservative Muslim sue AI for creating and displaying a likeness of Mohammad, for example, if one wants to know what Mohammed looked like?  We just don't know.

This is the danger of AI starting WWIII among humans.  We just don't know what the legal limits of AI are.  Those limits have never been tested in a court of law.  AI can produce images of anything.  And what if a likeness of someone even looks like someone else committing lewd acts, could a person sue?  We just don't know.  Lawsuits like this COULD put restrictions on just how much AI can do.  But it would be the creators of the AI that faces these suits, which means Bing which now owns its own AI could face a lot of legal hurdles.

I'm paying close attention to this lawsuit in Australia.  It might be the damage to this mayor's reputation can be corrected, but can it undo the damage done?  No one knows and this is what the court has to settle.  No one knows.  Lawsuits might prevent AI from being 100% autonomous.  

So, all we can do is sit back and watch.  If creators of the AI programs can be held accountable in courts of law, there just be might be limits on what AI can do.  But we just don't know.  This case is the first test case for AI.  Law scholars everywhere are watching this case very carefully, as are the creators of AI programming.  

But I am far from Australia today as I smoke my Nording Birthday pipe with my Old Professor, none of which has anything to do with AI.  This blog has its own algorithms, but I assure you I am the creator of this post.  So, I thank you for your time today and Peace to each one of you.

Dave

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's About Balance

-
 I seem to struggle week after week as to how much football I am going to watch.  There for awhile I was watching all the analysis of the collegiate games and decided I was simply paying too much attention to football.  I cut way back last week and as the season begins to unfold I have to ask myself how much is too much?  I didn't watch one pro game last weekend and hadn't followed the analysis of collegiate games all week.   Then I found myself having a kind of withdrawal and decided I can watch whatever football I want to watch as long as it doesn't interfere with my Spirituality.  But at what point is too much too much?  My wife and I talked about this last week as I cut back on watching and we both decided that I like football and I shouldn't have to be thinking about how much or how little I watch.  I enjoy the games.  College more than the pro's.   I don't have to watch the analysis, but I like College Game Day and I like...
Read more

Strange

-
 I can never predict how any of my posts are going to be received but I do get a reaction from my wife quite often, but I'll post about my Spirituality thinking I've said enough and apart from a few other subjects my Spirituality posts do quite well.  I had yesterday's tobacco review done a few days ago and saved it for yesterday and again, it seems my tobacco reviews do quite well.  Then I wrote about my age and it seemed no one cared that much   My wife says that it's my titles for my subjects So, while I have so many subjects to choose from, today it is about how my tobacco choices influence my Spirituality or do they?  Not really.  It's just that I can't smoke my pipes without tobacco.  I could be smoking a lot of things.  Like the question asked when someone thinks you are crazy, " What have I been smoking?"  Well, at least you know.  It's never any "funny" stuff.  You could be asking what I've been drinking.  I have ...
Read more

Old Ads

-
 My wife liked my post about old things we remember.  And a lot of what I remembered was good.  But there was some bad things back then that are different today.  Back in the 50's and 60's and even into the 70's advertising in both magazines and TV were incredibly sexist.  I don't have the space in one post to list all the ads, but really they can be summed by saying that a lot of advertising was incredibly sexist. I 've mentioned my wife lit my pipe for me just a few times, but these days she can barely tolerate the aroma of my most flavorful Aromatic tobacco.  She liked everything I said in that post except my mentioning Old Professor pipe tobacco.  Ironically, I like Old Professor the most and she hates it the most.  So, when I mentioned it, she did too.  But back in the day a man smoking a pipe was his lifestyle.  Today, it's a hobby, and not just for men. But too back in the day, no woman could walk down the street without some perv...
Read more