I came across this disturbing case where a dad is working to get OpenAI to remove the wrong information from their system. It seems ChatGPT has been creating responses that falsely accuse him of killing his own kids, which is completely untrue and harmful to his image.
The father isn’t just looking to block these damaging responses; he wants the company to delete the false information entirely from their training data and records. This situation raises questions about how AI companies deal with misinformation and if they should be legally required to remove false claims from their systems.
Has anyone else faced issues where AI chatbots spread false information about real individuals? What legal avenues are available when AI systems propagate defamatory content? I’m interested to see how this case could influence future handling of AI-generated misinformation.
This is still uncharted legal territory, but defamation law offers some options. Standard defamation cases need proof that the statement was false, damaged someone’s reputation, and was shared with others - all seem to fit here. But Section 230 complicates things since AI companies can claim they’re platforms, not publishers. The father would need to show actual damages and prove the company was careless about keeping false info up after being told about it. Some places have ‘right to be forgotten’ laws that might help, though getting US companies to comply is tough. The real issue is whether current laws can handle AI spreading lies at this scale. This case might force courts to decide if AI companies have to be careful when their systems make specific false claims about real people.
This case highlights a significant challenge with LLMs that is often overlooked. These systems are prone to hallucinating information about real individuals, effectively fabricating false facts. Once inaccurate data infiltrates the training sets, it becomes a formidable task to eliminate it. Even if OpenAI manages to filter out certain false claims, the model may still generate similar accusations through different neural pathways. Unlike standard databases, these systems don’t allow for simple record deletion. The knowledge is distributed across millions of parameters, making it difficult to surgically excise anything without substantial retraining of the model. The father’s case could set an important legal precedent regarding the obligation of AI companies to address and remove evidently false information, despite the complexities involved.