De Gene Zijde

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

So some fanartist drew a “sexy” (read: booby) version of a (cartoon) character who is traditionally very non-sexualised. Fans of the character got mad about it because it’s kind of groundbreaking how that character is written and portrayed and this art totally ignores the entire point of the character. They demanded the art be deleted. In response to that other people said, well what the fanartist did may be distateful but they have every right to draw what they’re into. The two sides fight for days and each starts a harassment campaign and even report their “opponents’” accounts.

So far so typical. But things eventually come to a head and they decide that this will be settled by votes - not through a poll. Through donations to a children’s education charity via each side’s portal. Whoever can get the highest amount of donation wins.

anyway, apparently no one told the side of this conflict that considers themselves "speed readers" that "speed reading" refers to a specific technique of skimming a lot of text quickly for basic comprehension, and they are under the impression that "speed reading" means "reading normally, just faster than regular people." then someone got mad at me for pointing out that reading a 137k late 20th century novel in "2 days" wasnt "speed reading", just a respectable--but normal--reading pace. that book (The Vampire Lestat) will take someone reading at 250wpm a smidge over 9 hours to finish, which is like. nothing if youre hitting it on the toilet, before bed, and on the bus to and from work (in my direct experience). 250wpm is how fast someone reads who is mentally sounding out every single word, which fast readers generally do not.