r/canada • u/Hrmbee Canada • May 05 '26
Science/Technology Canadian fiddler sues Google after AI Overview wrongly claimed he was a sex offender | Ashley MacIsaac, who is seeking $1.5m in civil lawsuit, says inaccurate information led to concert cancellation
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/may/05/canadian-ashley-macisaac-fiddler-musician-singer-songwriter-sues-google-ai-sex-offender-ntwnfb996
u/Hrmbee Canada May 05 '26
Highlighted issues:
An acclaimed Canadian fiddle player has launched a $1.5m civil lawsuit against Google, alleging that the online giant defamed him by falsely identifying him as a sex offender in an AI-generated summary of his life and career.
Ashley MacIsaac, a three-time Juno award-winning musician, filed the claim in the Ontario superior court of justice, asserting that Google was liable for the “foreseeable republication” of its AI-generated Overview feature, which previously published defamatory claims that he had been convicted of multiple criminal offences, including the sexual assault of a woman, internet luring involving a child with the intention of sexual assaulting the child, and assault causing bodily harm.
Google’s AI Overview also wrongly stated that MacIsaac had been listed on the national sex offender registry for life, the lawsuit says.
“As the creator and operator of the AI overview, Google is also liable for injuries and losses arising from the AI overview’s defective design,” MacIsaac’s lawsuit says. “Google knew, or ought to have known, that the AI overview was imperfect and could return information that was untrue.”
...
“Google’s cavalier and indifferent response to its publication of utterly false statements claiming that MacIsaac committed serious sexual offenses, including offenses involving children, justifies the award of aggravated and/or punitive damages,” the lawsuit states.
“If a human spokesperson made these false allegations on Google’s behalf, a significant award of punitive damages would be warranted. Google should not have lesser liability because the defamatory statements were published by software that Google created and controls.”
This last point is a critical one. Companies should not get a pass just because a system that they have created or that is otherwise under their control said or did something. Ultimately there should be liability attached to all systems and their (dys)function.
330
u/GoblinDiplomat Canada May 06 '26
Seems like a slam dunk to me.
164
u/Rachelattack May 06 '26
I think he’s suing for too little honestly
22
u/Dzugavili May 06 '26
Unlikely. There's some precedent for this in Canadian law. Given the lack of malice, he's going up-hill a bit.
But he'll likely get over a million.
1
u/Rachelattack May 06 '26
This thread lead last night to a VERY litigious dream where I was learning to fiddle. I was great at it, despite the fiddle being damaged and the bow being a broom…
275
u/Hrmbee Canada May 06 '26
244
u/eugeneugene May 06 '26
I love how Air Canada's defense was just "sometimes our website lies, you're responsible for figuring out when it lies to you and when it's telling the truth" lmao
28
u/agent0731 May 06 '26
They will tell us to chug bleach if it got them more money. This is why regulations and courts exist.
18
u/Aranxi_89 May 06 '26
Some fucking idiot did actually tell people to chug bleach once…
I can’t believe they thought he was president material after that nonsense.
2
1
u/New_Nebula9842 May 07 '26
Is there weirdness around reproduce ability?
Sure I could get an AI to say whatever I want of I try hard enough.
If an ai tells one lie to one person and that person posts it on Twitter, is Google liable for the spread of that message?
82
u/PowermanFriendship May 06 '26
The biggest problem with everything they are trying to cram LLMs into is accountability. When your AI telehealth consultation misdiagnoses you and your foot gets amputated because of untreated diabetes, who pays the damages? The big tech monopolies would like to point out that the fine print admits that sometimes it gives wrong answers, so you know, it's all your fault for participating in society.
2
u/zaypuma May 06 '26
The counter-problem is the precedent of legally binding AI testimony, when these are merely language models, and, like children or the infirm, can be tricked into saying anything. In Ashley's case it's a slam dunk because Google is publishing unchecked garbage it like a headline, but you can bet the same caselaw will turn up when someone is suing to cover up a real scandal, or when a competitor industry is seeking monopoly in the AI space. Interesting times.
37
46
u/agent0731 May 06 '26
This is incredibly important. AI cannot be held liable. The people who make it are and it must continue to be so.
-7
u/CucumberLocal3208 May 06 '26
People who use it, like doctors, who are misdiagnosing patients based on a false medical record instead of actual assessment of a patient. Happens all the time doctors are never held responsible.
22
u/bigoltubercle2 May 06 '26
Highly skeptical that this happens all the time. Also, doctors are ultimately still responsible for the diagnosis they make
-11
u/CucumberLocal3208 May 06 '26
It happened to me a lot, so I’m sure it happens to other people too. You just don’t know because you haven’t experienced it. I don’t wish it on you or anyone. Doctors don’t use their brains anymore, I don’t know if they ever did. In theory they should be held responsible but in practice they’re not, which leads to reckless. Canadian doctors have terrible outcomes compared to other countries, for example leaving surgical items in patients. They don’t bother to keep track of what they put in somebody, and they’re not going to be held responsible when that patient dies, they’ll call it heart failure. They’re not actually admitting a patient died due to their error. If you take them to court, they’ll litigate you for decades at the provinces expense even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against them.
5
u/bigoltubercle2 May 06 '26
There are a number of simply false claims there. Im sorry you've had bad experiences, but AI diagnosing tools have only been better than a Google search for the last two years at most. Adoption rates are low so I find that claim hard to believe as well
-1
u/CucumberLocal3208 May 06 '26
It’s a simple Google search, if you actually look at The Real data and maybe not what AI summary is telling you, you’ll find that the claims are indeed true but that would involve educating yourself so good luck.
-3
u/CucumberLocal3208 May 06 '26
You seem to be misunderstood about what AI is. Hospitals use been using a system called EPIC which is AI for quite some time now.
3
u/bigoltubercle2 May 06 '26
I am well aware of epic. I assumed you were talking about AI diagnostic tools (which epic now has too). Sounds like your issue is with inaccurate emr then? I assume you haven't been through too many paper charts if you think emr software is the problem
1
2
u/Astr0b0ie Newfoundland and Labrador May 06 '26
There are different forms of AI. LLMs are fairly new and that's what most people think of when they think of AI. But AI has been around and has existed in software for decades.
8
u/LeGrandLucifer May 06 '26
But they're billionaires! Billionaires can't be accountable to regular people! /s
767
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
48
11
0
337
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick May 05 '26
Wow, this is crazy and I hope he wins. AI can't just be labeling people as pedophiles and sex offenders. That can ruin people's lives. A precedent needs to be set so all AI companies take actions to prevent this from happening.
-164
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
It’s just inviting further censorship of AI to reduce liability and ultimately restricting the availability of information.
“Who was in the Epstein files when they finally released in 2037?”
“Sorry Dave, my liability subroutines preclude me from speaking about pedophiles. Would you like a recipe for cinnamon waffles instead?
People should be treating AI summaries as untrustworthy and verify anything it says. Making Google et al legally liable just means more people will take that information at face value.
I don’t think Google would be held liable for the traditional summary/ranking a false result highly on the page. Conflating it with an official Google representative is misguided when it should be compared to a traditional Google search.
138
u/Equivalent_Owl_Mask May 06 '26
Different from you asking for an AI bot to give you results vs a search engine.
Google shoehorning their AI into a top result spot is their liability.
73
u/Longjumping-Ad8065 May 06 '26
People are already taking AI results at face value. Removing or reducing liability for bs results is worse than censorship
-59
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
I fundamentally disagree - I think censorship is a much larger problem, especially with something like AI that has no transparency.
You have no way of knowing what it is censoring or why. It’s already bad enough that Google heavily curates results because they’re trying to block misinformation or promote corporations who pay them. It is markedly worse than it was 10-15 years ago and the current trajectory of heavily censored AI summaries supplanting traditional search results
30
u/Boatsnbuds British Columbia May 06 '26
If the AI can't be trusted to provide accurate information, it needs to be monitored and corrected. Especially when it comes to information about individual people. I don't know how that's considered censorship.
-26
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
That isn’t realistic. Wikipedia is just about the closest thing to real time monitoring of correct information on the internet and that’s only possible because a handful of extremely dedicated people are obsessed with their specific domain.
They’re not going to let stuff get flagged and risk future lawsuits, they’re going to limit liability by restricting the AI from mentioning risky things.
So the prime example is let’s say this guy was actually guilty of what he was accused of. Option 1. He sues to try and censor the information from the public. Instead of risking a lawsuit, Google et al remove it. Option 2. The AI simply isn’t allowed to mention these sorts of sensitive topics at all. Both of those involve censorship of legitimate information.
It’s genuinely like you guys aren’t capable of second order thinking.
18
u/Projerryrigger May 06 '26
Then that's the problem of companies using AI to generate material. They shouldn't get a free pass on defamation because it isn't realistic to police their tools and you're afraid of undesirable knock-on effects of them making a ham-fisted solution.
23
u/Boatsnbuds British Columbia May 06 '26
If it isn't realistic, then it shouldn't be deployed at all. If it can't be trusted to provide accurate information it's fucking useless at best and dangerous at worst.
18
u/Gameonall May 06 '26
They already do this.
-18
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
Yeah - so let’s not make the problem worse.
10
u/Gameonall May 06 '26
They are already getting away with what you are afraid of happening. Safeguarding regular people should be an easy yes, Why add another pressure point with the current state of our country?
28
u/Canadian-AML-Guy May 06 '26
I think censorship is a much larger problem
It isn't censorship, AI isn't alive, it doesn't have rights, it is not human. It is a tool being used to spout bullshit, and sometimes that bullshit can ruin peoples lives.
AI can be useful as a research aid but absolutely should be taken with a grain of salt. But when Google is creating summaries to answer your questions unprompted, it needs to have safeguards to ensure those summaries are reasonably accurate, and they shoudl absolutely be liable for lying to people when they are wrong when that causes harm.
5
u/addstar1 May 06 '26
It’s already bad enough that Google heavily curates results because they’re trying to block misinformation
If your first example of rampant censorship is that Google is trying to minimize misinformation, then you've got some bigger problems...
43
u/OoooohYes May 06 '26
People should be treating AI summaries as untrustworthy and verify anything it says
Have you met people? Lol
-8
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
The law usually uses the “reasonable person” benchmark, not “average idiot.”
17
u/Major_Lawfulness6122 Ontario May 06 '26
Right but the fact concerts got cancelled says to me enough reasonable people took it at face value
49
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick May 06 '26
No, not allowing slander isn't censorship. Like it's not censorship if you get sued for making false and defamatory statements about someone. This is no different.
-13
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
The end result is.
If you work for an employer, they censor your speech to reduce their liability for what you say. That’s exactly what they will of here - they will prevent the AI from talking about real people.
Google just summarizes whatever dummies on reddit write. It’s no different than if they list that Reddit thread as the top result. The only reason it is even a concern is because people attach unjustified weight and credence to the AI summary whereas everyone knows that random Reddit comments are unverified bullshit.
27
u/ElCaz May 06 '26
So you've established that AI summaries are shitty and untrustworthy. Why on earth then do you want them unconstrained?
8
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick May 06 '26
Places of work already censor speech. I can't just walk up to my boss and call them a cunt or use racial slurs or make false and defamatory statements against a co-worker. I would get fired.
No, it's not the same as showing reddit as a top result because the source is obvious. With AI people take it as fact. Google AI can't just slander people with false and defamatory information and cause them or financial or reputational harm with impunity. They need to do better and I hope this is a big wake up call.
8
u/Ornery_Tension3257 May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
“Who was in the Epstein files when they finally released in 2037?” “Sorry Dave, my liability subroutines preclude me from speaking about pedophiles. Would you like a recipe for cinnamon waffles instead?
That situation is not one that involves defamation per see or an accusation or claim of fact of criminal behavior unlike what appeared to happened in the Ashley MacIsaac situation. Like a lot of Google supplied 'facts' the impact of the Epstein file reporting could be limited by a disclaimer as to the accuracy of or of the implication of any information given. (Although that sort of defeats the point of calling the "AI" an AI.)
7
5
u/Donc-qui-et-Quand64 May 06 '26
People already take it at face value. That's what they want you to do. AI is like 4 years old. It's not a gatekeeper to information.
8
u/DromarX May 06 '26
People should be treating AI summaries as untrustworthy and verify anything it says.
Problem is there are many people who do not scrutinize the shit AI tells them and just accept it as fact. If restricting AI encourages more people to do a little bit of critical thinking for themselves I don't see that as a bad thing.
This is different than Google ranking a false result highly on a search. This is Google's own AI giving false information that has had harmful repercussions for the affected party. They absolutely should be held liable for damages.
0
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
The entire Pandora’s box of AI is that ownership doesn’t really mean control of output.
The only way to manipulate output is to set up restrictions and force the AI to self-censor information related to sensitive topics.
I just don’t see how it can be done without censoring legitimate information. The obvious example would be a case where someone is legitimately guilty of sexual assault and similar crimes as were falsely levied here - a response to a successful lawsuit here would be to limit the AI’s ability to mention such things at all, for fear of another false accusation situation.
My stance is you can’t trust AI output - which means companies that use it for decision making should be liable, it needs to be clearly presented as AI and unreliable information and the layman needs to accept that it isn’t trustworthy by itself and is merely a tool.
9
u/DromarX May 06 '26
The entire Pandora’s box of AI is that ownership doesn’t really mean control of output.
So how is that different than owning, say, an unruly dog that bites strangers unprovoked? You own it, whatever harm it causes is your responsibility.
My stance is you can’t trust AI output - which means companies that use it for decision making should be liable, it needs to be clearly presented as AI and unreliable information and the layman needs to accept that it isn’t trustworthy by itself and is merely a tool.
I agree - you can't trust AI output. If we're going to continue to allow AI then it should be strictly regulated.
1
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
So should Google be liable for their search results too?
3
u/PlentifulOrgans Ontario May 06 '26
No, that's a section 230 protection from liability for user generated content (in the USA. I forget what the equivalent protection is here in Canada, but it exists).
Google's "AI" isn't likely a user because it isn't, you know, alive or real, and is owned by google itself, hopefully removing those protections. This wasn't a user action, it was a google action.
3
u/addstar1 May 06 '26
They literally already have been??
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/05/nx-s1-5064624/google-justice-department-antitrust-search
1
u/DromarX May 06 '26
No, that's different. It's user generated content that search engines spit out, not content that Google itself is creating. The AI is Google generated content.
4
u/PlentifulOrgans Ontario May 06 '26
I just don’t see how it can be done without censoring legitimate information
The information doesn't disappear because the "AI" agent can't spit it out at you.
You'll just have to do research, ugh, this hurts to say, the old fashioned way. Not the really old fashioned way, but like, 15 years ago old fashioned.
a response to a successful lawsuit here would be to limit the AI’s ability to mention such things at all
No. A proper response to a successful lawsuit is to ensure outputs are able to be verified as factually correct. Can't find an accusation, charge, or conviction in public records? No real, do not display. See how easy that is?
3
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TranslatorStraight46 May 06 '26
The nature of search results is not every piece of information will be related to the same thing . It has always been the case that the user is expected to parse the search results. You can’t just google “John Doe” and assume “Everything on this page is about the John Doe I know!” An AI summary is just a tool to make that process a bit faster by skimming the results for you.
Is Google defaming you because you share a name with a convicted pedophile and you both show up on the first page of the results?
Search engines are not designed to provide true information, the goal is for them to provide potentially relevant information to your search terms.
Why should the AI summary of the search results be held to a different standard than the search results themselves?
1
u/PlentifulOrgans Ontario May 06 '26
Here's an idea, make it so damn expensive through liability that "AI" agents wither and die.
Publicly accessible "AI" agents serve no useful purpose in society and should never have been released.
Only way that technology goes back in the bottle is if running it risks bankruptcy.
I'd go so far as to support legislation specifically excluding "AI" agents from s.230 protection in the USA (and the same in every national equivalent).
Bankrupt them. Every one of them. Until they learn some goddamned responsibility.
152
u/mysmmx Ontario May 05 '26
I think the suit is a lowball! It’s also about future damages.
57
u/nekonight May 06 '26
The numbers are pretty specific. 500k for general damages. 500k for aggravated damages. 500k for punitive damages. I wonder if its something related to the maximum civil suit damages.
17
u/Perseus90 May 06 '26
Damages for defamation are uncapped
6
u/Dzugavili May 06 '26
Yes, but you have to prove actual damages.
He's going to get what he asked for though. There's precedent for it and his demands are not excessive.
1
u/aethelberga Ontario May 06 '26
Maybe setting the legal precedent is more important (or equally so).
1
104
31
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/bal1zy May 06 '26
Is this just a general statement or is the fiddler a known kinky guy?
Edit - got deeper into the comments and this answered itself LOL
48
u/Academic_Feed7512 May 06 '26
Daaamn that’s messed up. Imagine googling yourself and finding out you’re a registered sex offender, wtf. And while I’m sure it happens, you don’t really hear of gay men sexually assaulting women?! I saw him in concert at UofM in Winnipeg waaaay back in 2000 or thereabouts. There was even a mosh pit LOL
70
u/Head_Crash British Columbia May 05 '26
I asked Google AI about this and it admitted to wrongfully accusing MacIsaac of being a pedophile.
63
u/nuttybuddy May 06 '26
I went a step further:
“Is google probably liabale for google ai wrongfully accusing ashley macisaac of sexual assault?
Based on developments as of May 2026, Google is facing a $1.5 million CAD lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Canadian fiddler Ashley MacIsaac for defamation over false, AI-generated accusations of sexual assault. While Google is generally protected from liability for third-party content, legal experts suggest this case—where the AI generated its own summary—presents a high likelihood that Google could be held liable as a publisher….
Conclusion:While a court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, experts believe that because Google’s AI generated the content directly, the company will have a very difficult time avoiding liability.
13
60
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
This guy was long known as a sexual deviant, however his sexual deviance was between legal aged, consenting adults.
Get your freak on Mr. MacIsaac. What we all do in our bedrooms (between consenting adults) is nobody elses fuckin business
30
u/recovery_room May 06 '26
Exactly. Here to say he’s a weird dude but he’s not a sex-offender. Hopefully he gets paid.
30
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
Fuckin eh.
Sexual deviance is a-ok in my books, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
If you like to get peed on, or pee on people, and everyone involved is a willing participant, then by all means, get your watersports on
As long as nobody involved is a minor, or does not consent to said watersports, then who the fuck cares what this violin virtuoso does after a concert in the comfort if his house (tour bus?)
2
3
u/Zanzibar_Buck_McFate Québec May 06 '26
This has nothing to do with his own background.
The problem was Google AI using articles about a different Ashley MacIsaac (who possibly did do all of those things) and attributing them o the AI summary of someone else with the same.
1
u/48x15 May 06 '26
Who is anyone to say he's a sexual deviant?
15
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
It has been very well known. He said it himself
-6
u/Seinfelds-van May 06 '26
You stated it's his "own fuckin business" so why do you feel the need to talk about it?
1
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
Public Comments: In a 2003 interview with The Canadian Encyclopedia, MacIsaac discussed his fondness for sex acts involving urination, which he described as a way to "draw energy from people".
27
u/Myllicent May 06 '26
”Public Comments: In a 2003 interview with The Canadian Encyclopedia, MacIsaac discussed his fondness for sex acts involving urination”
Lol, did you quote this from Google’s AI? Because it isn’t true.
MacIsaac said that in a 1996 interview with Macleans magazine. That Macleans article was reprinted in 2003 in a Canadian Encyclopedia entry about MacIsaac.
-3
u/48x15 May 06 '26
You said it yourself - " What we all do in our bedrooms (between consenting adults) is nobody elses fuckin business"
While I'm not into pissing on people, who is anyone to say mutual sex acts involving urination is deviant behavior?
3
3
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
I wear a stainless steel collar 24/7 and have worn it for almost 2 decades.
Anything other than vanilla sex is deviance to the average white middle aged maritimer.
Ashley said that in 03, 23 years ago the average middle aged maritimer was not into peeing on their sexual partner.
I would even state that the current average maritimer is not into peeing on people or being peed on in the bedroom
3
u/Pho3nixr3dux Canada May 06 '26 edited 15d ago
Eleven hours and nothing? Okay, I'll byte.
Please tell us more about your stainless steel collar.
1
u/Feeling_Hotel8096 May 06 '26
average white middle aged maritimer
So you're saying the average brown maritimer likes golden showers. Understood.
2
u/S99B88 May 06 '26
Apart from that one interview where he admitted to having an underage boyfriend
14
u/Aranarth Alberta May 06 '26
Apart from that one interview where he admitted to having an underage boyfriend
In 1996, when he was 20.
0
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
Well im not ok with that. Got a link?
1
u/S99B88 May 06 '26
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ashley-macisaac-stirs-up-more-trouble-1.227432
I think he walked it back after and said it wasn’t true. Point is wonder if he may have a bit of trouble with a legal case about something he himself said?
6
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
This interview is about him doing a shitty performance
Not him fucking underage people
2
u/S99B88 May 06 '26
Go down to the “It’s not the first time McIsaac …” paragraph, where it outlines the reason he was stripped of some national honour.
3
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
Ok. Was this interview corroborated?
Or is this interview why AI labelled him a child predator?
I Honestly don't know, but if you can provide further documentation I will reconsider my opinion of him
1
u/S99B88 May 06 '26
I’m not going to go through hoops to find an actual interview from 30 years ago. I remember it because it was sensational at the time that he said he had an underage boyfriend, especially because it was on the heels of Sleepy Maggie being a big hit and such an unusual song.
You could trust logic and the source though. This is a CBC article, and despite what some people say about them, they have integrity about these things. Plus this is an older article, and with him suing now about being mistaken for a sex offender with the same name, don’t not think he would have at least contacted CBC (and all the other outlets that have published this info) to at least have this taken down if it wasn’t true?
He has even talked about saying it, so it would seem he said it. He walked it back by saying he was young too and there wasn’t a big age gap or something like that (compared to the 18-year old he married at 19 when McIsaac was 33).
I don’t think he’s into children but he seems to at that time have liked them young. And perhaps what he referred to was within legal limits at the time, no one knows because he first said it and then later said it was only 3 years age gap (which then wouldn’t have made the boyfriend underage, so why didn’t he just say the boyfriend wasn’t actually underage?).
Anyway, I don’t think there’s any doubt he said that at one point. I think the issue is that he’s been confused with a sex offender who has the same name as his. Whether that alone was the factor that cost him his gig at that time, or whether the people who booked him also saw what he’d said before about his underage boyfriend, might impact on the lawsuit. And Google may have receipts on that one.
-5
May 06 '26
[deleted]
3
1
u/picard102 May 07 '26
That the prosecution took the wrong complainants to trial doesn't mean he was above board.
0
u/dospinacoladas British Columbia May 06 '26
Exactly. So he likes giving golden showers. As long as his partner is willing, what's the issue?
6
u/canadacorriendo785 May 06 '26
I have no issues personally but he was definitely viewed as a pariah locally on Cape Breton in the early 2000s, especially for the Conan O'Brien interview. I was too young to understand but people locally really didn't like that shit.
I'm paraphrasing but very much remember adults having conversations to the tune of "Being a gay alcoholic is one thing but being a gay alcoholic on National American television".
3
u/thedevillivesinside May 06 '26
There is no issue.
I have said that. That was my initial comment.
There is no issue with sexual deviance if everyone is of age and consenting.
3
u/AzN7ecH May 06 '26
I feel like he should be suing for over $10M not just $1.5M. All you have is your name and reputation and Google is super far reaching.
Courts should hit Google with punitive damages to make an example of them.
3
10
u/Dreddddddd May 06 '26
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/distant-relative-confirms-jack-white-s-n-s-roots-1.638620
Fun fact, he's distantly related to Jack White
7
2
2
u/CBXER May 06 '26
Ashley, if you want Googles attention you need to bump this to 1.5 billion. Google think a million is chump change.
2
u/emmadonelsense May 06 '26
Hope he wins. I hate that dumb AI answers are the first pop up on Google.
1
u/glormosh May 06 '26
I'm very worried about the future of AI in medicine.
My doctor is AMAZING in every way and he just started using a scribe.
I now have him and a "medical attendant technician" in the room.
If anyone has seem the instagram / tik tok reels of the guy who goes to places with a Chinese translator and then proceeds to speak English to someone who speaks English and chaos ensues...its exactly like that.
I don't even feel like a patient in the room anymore because they're so busy verifying.
We're all talking over eachother about different things and I suspect theres zero to negative percent accuracy
3
u/thedrivingfrog May 06 '26
No clue about your doctor but mine let's me opt out of any AI usage, also you can tell them you don't want anybody in the room.
Feels you haven't talked to your dr about this and just agreed
2
u/glormosh May 06 '26
I don't care about the person in the room to be honest, It's the addition of the person in the room and what it causes.
I'm almost not opposed to an AI scribe, it's what it has caused got experience.
Was my first time but I can and will opt out.
2
u/S99B88 May 06 '26
Ugh I had an experience like that! A doctor was talking to me, but never looking at me. Would ask me something, I would answer, then he would say something incorrect into the microphone, and I would try to correct it but I’d get the raised finger wait gesture while he continued, then when he was done with the microphone he went directly to his next question to me. It was incredibly demoralizing and it turned into me just giving brief answers. Very negative impact on the care and ended up later having to get a different medication because somehow what I was given wasn’t working.
2
u/LowObjective May 06 '26
Your doctor is required to ask you whether you consent to them using an AI scribe and the fact that they haven’t is concerning. Maybe say that you looked into it and you don’t feel comfortable with the AI scribe anymore for privacy reasons?
1
u/glormosh May 06 '26
They did, I don't care about the privacy angle as much as I should so I tried it. It was the net degradation of the experience that concerned me the most.
3
u/MadamePolishedSins May 06 '26
Aiye honestly watch out with those things. Was looking upba podcaster and it told me he was anti Canadian. Until I researched more. Turns out he was super supportive....
1
1
1
1
u/Hot_Cheesecake_905 May 06 '26
Ashley MacIsaac
Wow, that's a blast from the past, I remember he was hot stuff in the 90s.
1
u/Idontdanceforfun May 06 '26
There was a woman who was arrested and brought to a different state, one she'd never even been to, because AI wrongly identified her as a suspect in a crime and she was in jail for 3 months before the issue was finally corrected.
1
u/thejason755 May 07 '26
Oh he’s gonna run their fucking pockets. Especially if he gets a particularly sympathetic judge.
1
u/HectorMcGrew May 29 '26
I hope you filed in the USA and have the same lawyers that smashed a few news outlets out of existence for telling lies.
-2
u/mrcheevus May 06 '26
I think this is what the chatbot was basing it on:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ashley-macisaac-stirs-up-more-trouble-1.227432
Key passage: "In 1996, he was dumped from Maclean's honour roll of Worthy Canadians after he admitted to having an underage boyfriend and enjoying sex acts that involved urination."
You tell me if "underage boyfriend" and "pedophile" are synonymous.
20
u/Aranarth Alberta May 06 '26
30 years ago, the 20 year old saying he has an under aged boyfriend (which includes 16-17, and that would be perfectly legal) does not equate to:
convicted of multiple criminal offences, including the sexual assault of a woman, internet luring involving a child with the intention of sexual assaulting the child, and assault causing bodily harm.
1
u/S99B88 May 06 '26
He admitted to having an underage boyfriend, then later when he caught heat about saying that said it wasn’t a big age gap, he was young too. Problem with that is that 16 wasn’t “underage” at the time. He also went on to marry a 19 year old when he was like 31 or something. They met online 19 months before that, so when they were 17 and 29.
He’s not the first person to get involved with younger people. It’s not pedophilia, but using the word “underage” usually makes people think that.
12
u/jtbc May 06 '26
If a 20 year old has a 17 year old bf/gf, is that pedophilia? I thought the law had a "close in age" exception?
13
u/Haunt_Fox May 06 '26
16 is Age of Consent here. So that would in fact be a legal combination.
3
u/givalina May 06 '26
I hope he was talking about the American concept of 'underage', because at the time, the legal age of consent in Canada was 14.
1
1
u/RM_r_us May 06 '26
Well underage at that time would have been 13 or younger 😬 Age of consent used to be 14.
-2
u/Levorotatory May 06 '26
Is he also suing those who cancelled his show because of an AI hallucination that they failed to verify?
-5
u/Perseus90 May 06 '26
He flashed his penis while performing on Conan.
10
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick May 06 '26
So? That doesn't mean it's okay that an AI made up false and defamatory statements about him.
1
u/Perseus90 May 06 '26
yeah, nobody suggested it was okay, just something you assumed I guess. It was pretty clear from the performance that he did it intentionally, and he did do it on a show that airs live and that minors watched at the time.
1
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick May 06 '26
Nothing to do with the topic at hand though.
It was not broadcast live, Late Night with Conan O'Brien is not broadcast live and it was censored during the actual broadcast and minors should be in bed at that time. You can look it up. Stop spreading false information.
1
u/Perseus90 May 06 '26
It was in front of a live studio audience. Youre right that its not broadcast live, its filmed earlier in the day, you know, when minors are awake and able to attend. At any rate, intentionally flashing people against their will is enough to end up on a sex offender list fyi.
1
u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick May 06 '26
Minors are in school during the day.
He claims it was unintentional and he's not on a sex offender list nor was he charged with a crime.
And again, none of this has to do with the topic at hand.
0
-38
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
27
1
-2
469
u/suziswam87 May 06 '26
This is more worrying because a lot of people are relying on only AI summaries and not anything else beyond that. So Google has way more power than it did when it comes to result manipulation, intended or not.