If lawyers had a honest day of work they'd try to sue a hammer for excessive building damage
This would be like suing Adobe because someone made something in photoshop, imo.
"ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts."
good luck with lawsuit when this text is next to your input for chat.
like seriously, how can you be mad at openai when you fail to read what is shown to you?
> Similarly, Volokh suggested that OpenAI might not be shielded by ChatGPT disclaimers like the one in its terms of use.
> "Ars Technica can’t immunize itself from defamation liability by merely saying, on every post, 'this post may contain inaccurate information'—likewise with OpenAI," Volokh told Ars.
Besides the point of whether this is just or not,
Wait, is there actually a case where a corporation can be held liable for something? All those terms of use “agreements” that you can’t live without signing a thousand of, they don’t completely take away your rights?
Seems hard to prove damages, since the person requesting the summary immediately recognized it as inaccurate.
Simple fix: sue the guy. Then ChapGPT isn't lying.
I would simply not believe big factual claims made by an LLM without verifying them