For Section 230 purposes, is AI generated text third party or first party content? If a site sets up basically unsupervised or algorithmically supervised routine publication of #ChatGPT content, is it under current US law liable for what the robot says? Would OpenAI be? Would anyone at all be? (inspired by @emilymbender https://dair-community.social/@emilymbender/109716249225156006, though she presents a more traditionally publication-like, so arguably more likely liable, case.) #Section230
@interfluidity @emilymbender The algorithm isn't a person. So, if a person at the organization posts the algorithm's content, it's first party. But if someone outside the organization posts it, it's third party.
We need to avoid the temptation to assign agency to these tools.
@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender if a corporation posts something, it’s a 1st party but it’s not a person. is OpenAI the 1st party? The intent of Section 230 was to encourage a diverse range of internet forums, in terms of particip8n and moder8n. Section 230 shields even when in practical terms there is no 1st party to hold responsible, e.g. anonymous speech. AI tools are arguably an important new participant in online forums. should they be uniquely perilous?
@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender note that soliciting speech or even being paid to host it doesn’t invalidate Section 230 protection. substack actively solicits the participation of particular authors, and earn a cut of their revenue, but remains shielded. if a platform solicits a LLM’s speech, why is that any different?
@interfluidity @emilymbender Because one is a human and the other is a tool.
@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender if a corporate entity has a substack, it’s not a person, the tools by which the content is created are entirely opaque to substack, yet substack still would be protected.
@interfluidity @emilymbender Organizations of people are treated as people under the law, yes.
@interfluidity @emilymbender It's the prompter's speech.
And orgs are collectives of natural persons, so they can be treated as people under the law. Non-humans cannot be.
@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender That’s your view! We’ll see if it’s also the courts’, despite clever protestations by all the organizations eagerly plugging LLMs into their products, and likely the vendors selling them.
@LouisIngenthron @emilymbender Right. People under the law aren’t necessarily natural people. So is OpenAI (the organization) the right person to attribute authorship to? The prompter? Should it be determined by some complicated analysis specific to each particular case? Should (like anonymous speech) it be for all practical purposes authorless?