Israel.

Israel.

correct, because they are, and always have been, responsible.

Fuck Israel

Wrong. Israel funded Hamas's attacks on Israel because Israel is the one who has consistently chosen violence over peace. Israel has literally never been one of the good guys at any point in it's existence.

This statement is useless in a court of law and doesn't mean anything.

Stockholm Syndrome isn't a real thing, retard.

Which doesn't matter if MacIsaac counts as a "public figure", because they'll need proof of malice instead.

Prior guilt does not prove current guilt.

Adequate doesn't matter. It's whether or not reasonable safeguards are in place, which, you have zero factual intel about because you haven't seen the source code.

There are probably plenty of other defenses beyond arguing fault. Could easily argue that the output of Google's AI Overview counts as neither a form of publication nor communication. If that doesn't fly, Google could then easily argue that it's was an entirely accidental publication and it has been since "fixed". Then there is the fact that AI is known to hallucinate AND the fact that every AI Overview output includes "AI responses may include mistakes." at the bottom, so there is already a disclaimer in place essentially telling you that these statements should not be taken as fact. They could also try to lean on Section 230, but that probably wouldn't work.

It would not be hard to build a defense that destroys anything MacIsaac's lawyers could argue. I will assume that Google's lawyers are better than me and have even better defenses planned. And I will also assume MacIsaac isn't rich enough to force his lawyers to be complete morons.

I was acknowledging your address of it with my questions-. I just didn't feel like breaking the continuity of my post to quote different portions of yours.

And probably will again, despite whatever fixes I'm sure they already implemented immediately after finding out about this. It's not whether or not the precautions were adequate to prevent the occurrence. It's about whether they were reasonable precautions. And, like I said, given this hasn't happened more often or with bigger, actually well-known celebrities, I am forced to believe that there are quite a few reasonable precautions built-in and more will continually be added. Just like I am forced to believe language, and more specifically communication, will continue to evolve just like it always has - words take on new meanings and lose old ones; new words come in to existence.

Perhaps. But that depends on whether or not the court first considers MacIsaac as a "public figure" or not. If he's famous enough (says he's world-renown but I've never heard of him before today and after listening to some of his works, I'm not impressed, it's all pretty middling), then instead MacIsaac would need to prove malice which he definitely can't. If he isn't famous enough and only needs the negligence, he still needs to have the proof of such negligence. He can't just sue Google and then go digging for the proof. The only way I can think of to prove negligence on Google's behalf would be to have knowledge or access to the AI Overview source code - something which I highly doubt MacIsaac, or his lawyers, will get access to as the courts really hate granting that privilege.

I'm not saying it's impossible that Google is at fault in this instance. However, I am saying that is highly improbably MacIsaac will attempt to sue and that, even if he does, it's even more improbable that Google is found guilty of any wrongdoing. Plus it depends on how high the damages are. What is one concert worth of income to someone like MacIsaac? I don't know, but I also don't know if it would be worth the lawyer fees and time sink. Of course, he could gamble that Google quickly settles out of court, but is the gamble worth it?

Sure, if I set it up negligently or to purposely defame someone. Can you confidently say Google took no precautions against this sort of thing? I can't. If they didn't take any precautions, this would happen way more often and with bigger, real celebrities. And, if the defamed person rises to "public figure" status, then you'd need to prove that I did it maliciously. I'm not sure if MacIsaac counts as a "public figure", but if they do...do you honestly think Google maliciously targeted a random minor Canadian musician on purpose? I don't. So, yeah, the case falls apart.

The law sure doesn't, which is part of the problem. If I released a program/website with a list of dictionary words and common names that generates 100% random sentences, it will eventually generate something defamatory towards someone. If anyone takes this random amalgamation of words at face value, that's their problem, not mine.

Eh, it can output material that can be used to defame someone, but it falls short. You need 4 things:
-False Statement, which they have.
-Published/Communicated, which, yeah.
-Fault, this is where it's unlikely. Depending on whether he is counted as a "public figure" or not, they need either proof of malice or proof of negligence. As much as people would like to believe this is Google being negligent, I'm more than positive they've worked really hard to try and prevent cases like this from happening. And there is definitely no case for actual malice.
-Damages, which, based on the last thing you said, may or may not cancel out.

An LLM cannot defame someone. And unless you can prove that Google setup their LLM specifically to defame the artist, there isn't a case to be had. If anyone should be sued it's the venue for canceling based off of faulty and unproven information.

Feel bad for his family because he died being stupid. Other than that, nothing of value was lost.

I'm so tired of these garbage movies. Avatar has 1 thing and 1 thing only, it has very pretty CGI. That's it. The acting is mid. The plot is mid. People don't have an issue with movies, they have an issue with movie theaters - too expensive. Major movie theaters have been a bad value for, at least, two decades. If you want popcorn and a drink while watching the movie, it ends up being well over $10 per hour of entertainment. Regal, AMC, Cinemark... they all suck.

First of all, Sandfall publicly disclosed the use of AI during the development process and months before it's original launch. So, I don't believe that Six One Indie didn't know about it.

Secondly, this awards show means nothing and is hosted by morons that have never had success like CO:33.

Weird, it's almost like it's the only thing I do.

Sure, some games do, but many newer games do not. Any games that have working wallhacks has nothing to do with trusting the client, but rather allowing more data than is necessary to be accessed by the client. There is no point in the game locally knowing about or rendering an enemy player on the other side of a wall.

Vanguard is installed into the brain of the computer and there is no drug testing that would be even close to equivalent.

No, there are no real-time monitoring of drugs for any sports competition.