It’s a jungle out there.

err... you guys voted for the administration that fucks over the rest of the world. Twice. So tell me, why would you expect the rest of humanity to show any kindness to the populace entirely responsible for what is happening right now?

There's a wide world outside big tech, Silicon Valley, and software in general. It only tends to be a bit less visible online.

No one is, until someone is. You could say the same about newspapers, TV, or the internet.

> If they do, that's not Google's problem.

Well yes, it is, at least in Germany for now, where at least one judge seems to see it that way. And that's correct, IMHO, because Google would (in that case) make something appear as factual information when it is not.

> It's someone else's fault, principally those who blindly acted on information they were told was potentially incorrect.

Those people are definitely at fault; history is full of examples of mobs acting horribly based on shallow, incomplete, misleading, flawed, or flat out wrong information. But you can't just put all blame on those mobs, when someone gave them this information - or do you think, for example, Donald Trump played no part in the January 6 riots and should not be held accountable for it?

> In the world according to you, AI couldn't exist. Or more likely, it would be accessible only to academic and corporate/financial/government/military elites. That's not OK, and I'm unwilling to join you in pretending that it is.

That isn't my stance at all. AI should exist, and it should be widely available in my opinion. I don't even think this is primarily about AI, but entities in a position of power acting responsibly, such as Google (which has worked hard to position itself as a gateway to information and steward of facts.)

I think we should not put the burden of verifying information entirely on consumers, we shouldn't allow big corporations to run the largest social experiment in history on their own terms, and we need to talk about responsibility and safety.

> So your position is that the general public should be given access to AI only when it is either capable of flawless accuracy, or when the AI provider is prepared to assume unbounded liability despite warning the user that perfect accuracy is not possible.

That is neither my, nor the sibling's, nor this ruling's position. The issue the court took was that Google presented AI-generated information in a shape that was indistinguishable to common users from the previously statistically sourced factoids in Google Search - a product that historically allowed to search the internet for things and get back search results, not AI-provided guesses and hopefully-correct information.

The entire point is that companies should not be allowed to use AI recklessly. This point is also one that the Pope made in his encyclical, and the EU posits in the AI act, by the way.

You have no idea what it can mean to end up in such a situation.