this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
767 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

68066 readers
4237 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
767
Dad demands OpenAI delete ChatGPT’s false claim that he murdered his kids (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 week ago by OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
135 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A Norwegian man said he was horrified to discover that ChatGPT outputs had falsely accused him of murdering his own children.

According to a complaint filed Thursday by European Union digital rights advocates Noyb, Arve Hjalmar Holmen decided to see what information ChatGPT might provide if a user searched his name. He was shocked when ChatGPT responded with outputs falsely claiming that he was sentenced to 21 years in prison as "a convicted criminal who murdered two of his children and attempted to murder his third son," a Noyb press release said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deur@feddit.nl 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Im not a lawyer but the most conclusive missing piece of what we commonly understand to be libel is the information has to be published.

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

I thought about that.

The definition of publish could get a little murky here. Actually the best defense here is that, so far as we know, this was not disclosed to a third party by ChatGPT (that's pretty flimsy, though, because it likely has no idea who it is talking to.)

I acknowledge there is some level of nuance here, which is why I come back to no one should have any expectation that AI will be factual. The disclaimers are everywhere. There is really no excuse for anyone to treat the output as gospel.