Liability is by definition a contentious matter, and will have to be updated with the rise of generative artificial intelligence content. Who is responsible for hallucinated or incorrect material, for example? Some might argue it is the language model provider, but that seems unlikely to happen, as a rule. Instead, users will likely still be held liable.
LinkedIn, for example, is updating its user agreements to make clear that the site might show some artificial intelligence generated content that is inaccurate.
Some might argue that product liability frameworks apply while others might see service contract frameworks as a possible model. In the former case, suppliers could be held liable for product defects or “failure to warn” of misuse. The “product defect” defense might be hard to prove, as it requires some proof of faulty design or production.
The latter should be easy to defend: just make sure warnings about possible inaccuracies are prominent.
In that sense, the "warning labels" are really important, as they offer liability protection for providers of large language models.
No comments:
Post a Comment