Section 230 should not apply to AI, don't care what any "techbro" thinks, it was not meant for AI and if there should be any protection for AI it should be drafted explicitly for it.
The problem is that that isn't what this bill is about - we can have a reasonable discussion on whether an AI written article or tweet or whatever should have the same Section 230 protections - but even things that are human written and do not have their content changed in a material way, and instead are just spellchecked or similar, also fall under this proposed legislation.
Removal of Section 230 immunity is not the same thing as creating or imposing actual liability.
Even if the scope of the exemption is broad, from someone's standpoint, the backend liability is likely to do a fair amount of work in whether a generative AI company could be liable for a particular cause of action.
This is demonstrably true: using that example, Section 230 does not protect text editor software doing spellchecking. However, you don't see a lot of (any?) claims against text editor developers, and there's not really any chill in the development of spellchecking over fear of lawsuits.
cthalupa|2 years ago
averysmallbird|2 years ago
Even if the scope of the exemption is broad, from someone's standpoint, the backend liability is likely to do a fair amount of work in whether a generative AI company could be liable for a particular cause of action.
This is demonstrably true: using that example, Section 230 does not protect text editor software doing spellchecking. However, you don't see a lot of (any?) claims against text editor developers, and there's not really any chill in the development of spellchecking over fear of lawsuits.
(disclosure: staff involved in the bill)