> Introducing the new Bing: Ask real questions. Get complete answers. Chat and create.
> Ask anything. Ask your questions – short, long or anything in between. The more precise you ask, the better the answer.
> ... Answers are just the beginning: The new Bing offers you reliable, up-to-date results – and complete answers to your questions. Of course, it also cites the sources.
Clearly claims it gives complete, precise, reliable answers to questions. There are absolutely no disclaimers on either of those pages about accuracy or "for entertainment purposes only". The only thing is a link to the terms of use which largely contradicts what the front pages are clearly marketing it as:
and even then you have to hunt, buried below-the-fold on screen 3/4, for the weaselly language:
> 9. No Guarantees; No Representations or Warranties; Indemnification by You. We plan to continue to develop and improve the Online Services, but we make no guarantees or promises about how the Online Services operate or that they will function as intended. The Online Services are for entertainment purposes; the Online Services are not error-free, may not work as expected and may generate incorrect information. You should not rely on the Online Services and you should not use the Online Services for advice of any kind. Your use of the Online Services is at your own risk
For example, to a layman "this service is not error-free" would be be understood as merely "the server might occasionally crash/ hang/ timeout", not "the AI may randomly fabricate completely untrue and fictitious, yet plausible-looking, claimed facts. Do not trust a word it outputs".
(The gap will be totally blurred once there's a feedback-loop where web content written by GPT (in any jurisdiction) gets reindexed by Bing(/Google) then relied on as fact, without attribution or disclaimer. From content-farms to libel-farms, disinformation-farms, reputation-laundering-farms, election-influencing farms... so many possibilities. And people could pick the most permissive jurisdiction to host such content in.)
> Still, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this case.
For sure. And remember, any court case would likely be in an Australian court under Australian law with Australian penalties. I do not believe the above TOU trickery (arguing that precise, yet totally false, answers are 'reliable'... 'complete answers' to user questions) will fly in Australian court.
(But that could have been ChatGPT directly, or via Bing, or other API.)
You're correct, I misread the article, it says directly from OpenAI. Its last paragraph says Bing does not have the misinformation:
> Different chatbots, different answers
> The BBC was able to confirm Mr Hood's claims by asking the publicly available version of ChatGPT on OpenAI's website about the role he had in the Securency scandal.
> ... But the same (incorrect) result does not appear in the newer version of ChatGPT which is integrated into Microsoft's Bing search engine.
> It correctly identifies him as a whistleblower, and specifically says he "was not involved in the payment of bribes... as claimed by an AI chatbot called ChatGPT".
Not true. Yes it was specifically claimed to be, by Bing (and I don't see on Bing any link to OpenAI's TOU):
https://www.bing.com/ the new Bing, your AI-powered copilot for the web.
https://www.bing.com/new :
> Introducing the new Bing: Ask real questions. Get complete answers. Chat and create.
> Ask anything. Ask your questions – short, long or anything in between. The more precise you ask, the better the answer.
> ... Answers are just the beginning: The new Bing offers you reliable, up-to-date results – and complete answers to your questions. Of course, it also cites the sources.
Clearly claims it gives complete, precise, reliable answers to questions. There are absolutely no disclaimers on either of those pages about accuracy or "for entertainment purposes only". The only thing is a link to the terms of use which largely contradicts what the front pages are clearly marketing it as:
https://www.bing.com/new/termsofuse
and even then you have to hunt, buried below-the-fold on screen 3/4, for the weaselly language:
> 9. No Guarantees; No Representations or Warranties; Indemnification by You. We plan to continue to develop and improve the Online Services, but we make no guarantees or promises about how the Online Services operate or that they will function as intended. The Online Services are for entertainment purposes; the Online Services are not error-free, may not work as expected and may generate incorrect information. You should not rely on the Online Services and you should not use the Online Services for advice of any kind. Your use of the Online Services is at your own risk
For example, to a layman "this service is not error-free" would be be understood as merely "the server might occasionally crash/ hang/ timeout", not "the AI may randomly fabricate completely untrue and fictitious, yet plausible-looking, claimed facts. Do not trust a word it outputs".
(The gap will be totally blurred once there's a feedback-loop where web content written by GPT (in any jurisdiction) gets reindexed by Bing(/Google) then relied on as fact, without attribution or disclaimer. From content-farms to libel-farms, disinformation-farms, reputation-laundering-farms, election-influencing farms... so many possibilities. And people could pick the most permissive jurisdiction to host such content in.)
> Still, it will be interesting to see the outcome of this case.
For sure. And remember, any court case would likely be in an Australian court under Australian law with Australian penalties. I do not believe the above TOU trickery (arguing that precise, yet totally false, answers are 'reliable'... 'complete answers' to user questions) will fly in Australian court.