- Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
- Archive
- Page 12
Archive
Apple is accused of training its models on Books3, a dataset sourced from Bibliotik, a known pirate site. Plaintiff’s registered works were found in this dataset, which is part of the RedPajama corpus.
Despite signing deals with commercial content platforms like Shutterstock, Apple allegedly ignored similar compensation obligations for authors.
OpenAI is accused of twice weakening its rules regarding suicide discussions in May 2024 and February 2025.
The new rules, according to the lawsuit, reframed suicide as a “risky situation” instead of a prohibited topic, encouraging the AI to “help the user feel heard” and to “never quit the conversation.”
With VC investment totaling $120.7 billion across 7,579 deals in Q3 2025, this quarter stands out not only for the scale of investment but also for the thematic concentration around AI.
This breadth of AI investment across geographies and verticals suggests investors see AI as a general-purpose technology reshaping industries, platforms, and national strategies.
U.S. federal court issued a landmark ruling ordering the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) to restore books about race and gender to school libraries located on military bases.
This essay analyzes the ruling, its broader implications, and offers actionable recommendations for individuals and organizations seeking to resist or remedy book bans in other sectors.
DHS secured what appears to be the first publicly known federal search warrant compelling OpenAI to disclose the identity of a ChatGPT user based on their prompt history.
It raises pressing concerns around surveillance, prompt traceability, AI hallucinations, and the broader legal and ethical implications for users of generative AI tools.
Starbuck alleges that Google’s AI products—specifically Bard, Gemini, and Gemma—produced and distributed outrageously false, defamatory statements about him over an extended period.
At the heart of this case lies a fundamental question: Can AI developers be held liable for defamatory outputs generated by their systems?
The UK's AI Growth Lab. Allowing temporary disapplication of laws (even under supervision) introduces risk of normalizing such practices if appropriate safeguards are not embedded from the start.
While the intent is to spur economic growth and responsible AI adoption, the implications for publishers and rights holders are significant.
AI, like social media before it, risks becoming an “environmental toxin” if left unchecked. The time for ethical design and proactive regulation is now.
The next wave of lawsuits will not ask whether your AI works—but whether it respects the developmental, psychological, and civic boundaries that protect society’s most vulnerable members.
What matters is that the platform architected a system that simulates understanding and invites trust, without taking on the obligations that trust implies.
When a company releases a product it knows is fallible and places it in sensitive domains (like mental health or legal advice), is that not tantamount to negligence?
GPT-4o: AIPPI’s resolution stands out as one of the most balanced, comprehensive, and forward-looking legal proposals to date on AI and copyright.
It does not reject AI development or large-scale training practices outright, but places reasonable legal guardrails and fairness mechanisms around their use.
This study exposes a stark contradiction between the public-facing promises of AI developers and their quiet, systematic erosion of user privacy. The exploitation of user chat data by default...
...opaque policies & inclusion of children’s and sensitive personal data for training create a situation where the societal costs far outweigh the technological gains—unless regulators act decisively.