![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
erek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 11,103
Section 230, and "/ Are the robots responsible for what they say?"
"Familiar search engine interfaces can rely on a measure of protection from Section 230 if they link to inaccurate information, arguing that they’re simply posting links to content from other sources. The situation for AI-powered chatbot search interfaces is much more complicated. “This would be a very new question for the courts to address,” says Jeff Kosseff, US Naval Academy law professor and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet about the history of Section 230. “And I think part of it is going to depend on what the Supreme Court does in the Gonzalez case.”
If Section 230 remains mostly unchanged, many hypothetical future cases will hinge on whether an AI search engine was repeating somebody else’s unlawful speech or producing its own. Web services can claim Section 230 protections even if they’re lightly changing the language of a user’s original content. (In an example Kosseff offers, a news site could edit the grammar of a defamatory comment without taking responsibility for its message.) So an AI tool simply tweaking some words might not make it responsible for what it says. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has suggested that AI-powered Bing faces basically the same legal issues as vanilla Bing — and right now, the biggest legal questions for AI-generated content fall around copyright infringement, which sits outside of Section 230’s purview."
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/16/...onzalez-google-bard-bing-ai-search-algorithms
An induced interpretation: "This passage discusses the legal implications for AI-powered search engines and chatbots with respect to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides protection for online platforms against liability for user-generated content. The author notes that search engines with familiar interfaces, such as Google or Bing, can rely on Section 230 protection by arguing that they are simply linking to inaccurate information posted by other sources.
However, the situation for AI-powered search interfaces is more complicated because it is unclear whether they are producing their own speech or repeating someone else's unlawful speech. This issue will likely depend on future court cases and potentially on the outcome of the Gonzalez case.
The passage also notes that web services can claim Section 230 protection even if they lightly edit user-generated content, such as correcting grammar, and that an AI tool that simply tweaks some words might not be responsible for what it says.
Overall, the biggest legal questions for AI-generated content currently revolve around copyright infringement, which falls outside of Section 230's protections."
"Familiar search engine interfaces can rely on a measure of protection from Section 230 if they link to inaccurate information, arguing that they’re simply posting links to content from other sources. The situation for AI-powered chatbot search interfaces is much more complicated. “This would be a very new question for the courts to address,” says Jeff Kosseff, US Naval Academy law professor and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet about the history of Section 230. “And I think part of it is going to depend on what the Supreme Court does in the Gonzalez case.”
If Section 230 remains mostly unchanged, many hypothetical future cases will hinge on whether an AI search engine was repeating somebody else’s unlawful speech or producing its own. Web services can claim Section 230 protections even if they’re lightly changing the language of a user’s original content. (In an example Kosseff offers, a news site could edit the grammar of a defamatory comment without taking responsibility for its message.) So an AI tool simply tweaking some words might not make it responsible for what it says. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has suggested that AI-powered Bing faces basically the same legal issues as vanilla Bing — and right now, the biggest legal questions for AI-generated content fall around copyright infringement, which sits outside of Section 230’s purview."
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/16/...onzalez-google-bard-bing-ai-search-algorithms
An induced interpretation: "This passage discusses the legal implications for AI-powered search engines and chatbots with respect to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides protection for online platforms against liability for user-generated content. The author notes that search engines with familiar interfaces, such as Google or Bing, can rely on Section 230 protection by arguing that they are simply linking to inaccurate information posted by other sources.
However, the situation for AI-powered search interfaces is more complicated because it is unclear whether they are producing their own speech or repeating someone else's unlawful speech. This issue will likely depend on future court cases and potentially on the outcome of the Gonzalez case.
The passage also notes that web services can claim Section 230 protection even if they lightly edit user-generated content, such as correcting grammar, and that an AI tool that simply tweaks some words might not be responsible for what it says.
Overall, the biggest legal questions for AI-generated content currently revolve around copyright infringement, which falls outside of Section 230's protections."
