> This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue
replyThey can publish all they want, they just have to label it clearly. I don’t see how that is a free speech issue.
Because compelled speech is an insult to free speech just as censored speech is.
replyHow do you feel about the fact that manufacturers need to list the ingredients of the food they sell you?
replyNot thrilled about it, and I personally would rather see them repealed. I will concede compelled speech impositions have been interpreted more generously when they are commercial. I don't necessarily agree with it, but even if we concede they can happen, I hope that distinction is made for commercial vs non-commercial content. Though I'm not thrilled with it happening for either.
replyIs AI-generated text speech?
replyIt is when a human publishes it. Which is why they're also liable for it.
replyI agree in general and that should be the position but it's probably more nuanced than this in practice: who published it when it's a dev that writes a script that just spits junk into the wild or reinforces someone else's troll-speech?
replyIn general, I think LLM content has been found to not be copyrightable, but it would still speech when it's published. It would be the speech of the company publishing it, not the dev that wrote the script. So, ai-junk-news.com is still publishing some kind of speech, even if it was an LLM that wrote it. At least, that would be my interpretataion.
reply