South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.


From a post on FB... Spot the AI generative boo-boos...
View attachment 1914258
Source: https://web.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1033897495837363

Potentially impacting all AI search engines and chatbots known to poorly paraphrase source links, a German court has ruled that Google is liable for false statements in AI Overviews.
The preliminary ruling came in a case flagged by The Decoder, where two publishers found that Google’s AI Overviews incorrectly linked them to scams and other sketchy business practices.
After smearing publishers by making affirmative statements like “Yes, [it] is known for dubious business practices and is often perceived as a scam,” Google failed to correct the misleading output, even after the publishers sent a cease-and-desist letter earlier this year.
Google tried the usual arguments to shield itself from liability for false statements in AI Overviews, such as arguing that most users understand that AI outputs aren’t always accurate and must be verified.
But the court found that, unlike traditional search engines that merely present lists of links to third-party statements, Google’s tool made “independent, new, and substantive statements” based on its own misinterpretation of links on the Internet.
That’s a problem, the court said, because while publishers may have been able to sue to stop third parties from publishing defamatory statements appearing in Google search results, only Google can correct the underlying algorithm and outputs displayed in AI Overviews.
And because, at least initially, the company did not, it therefore “must be held accountable,” the court ruled. Beyond that, Google’s argument was deemed particularly weak, since the AI overview in this case “contains statements that do not appear in the search results at all.”
The court’s order—requiring a temporary injunction barring Google from spreading the false claims in any further AI Overviews—may have global implications, as the court seems to be the first to hold an AI firm liable for AI speech.
In the past, AI firms have hoped that disclaimers warning about misinformation would protect them from lawsuits over untrustworthy outputs. Last year, one chatbot maker even argued that AI speech is its own category of “pure speech” and the First Amendment should protect it.
According to a Google translation of the German court ruling, however, the false outputs were “primarily an expression of the defendant’s commercial activity,” and the AI tool’s “opinions” and false statements were capable of impacting public opinion.
The court concluded that, in weighing the balance, publishers’ interest in removing the false information outweighed Google’s commercial speech rights.
arstechnica.com

www.forbes.com
President Javier Milei's administration submitted draft legislation to Congress to amend Argentina's general corporations law. The primary AI bill creates a new legal category for "non-human corporations," allowing companies to be owned, operated, and run autonomously by algorithms with no human involvement required.
Key Details of the "Non-Human Corporations" Bill
- Core Concept: Permits AI agents, robots, or autonomous algorithms to hold corporate assets, sign contracts, and operate businesses with limited liability.
- Human Involvement: Human shareholders and managers may participate, but their presence is not required.
- Regulatory Stance: Part of a broader strategy to keep AI entirely unregulated by federal mandates, aiming to attract tech investment and foster an AI-friendly corporate environment.
- Liability & Code Transparency: AI-run companies must identify as such in their incorporation documents and are liable for damages caused by their autonomous algorithms. However, the source code is legally protected and can only be scrutinized under a court order.
![]()
Argentina Wants To Let AI Own Companies. Here’s What That Means
Argentina is considering legislation to allow AI-run companies with no human owners or executives. Supporters see innovation; critics warn of accountability risks.www.forbes.com