I'll just say this, if a political law professor who makes a substantial income from thinkpieces and talking head segments had a legitimate case to take on his

I'll just say this, if a political law professor who makes a substantial income from thinkpieces and talking head segments had a legitimate case to take on his political opponents ("liberal technologists" in this case as the fearmongering at the end of his article indicates) and was actually in a good position to sue someone, they would. This is not like the Technoviking, as that was about image rights and not slanderous copy, and ChatGPT isn't publishing anything that it (or its creators) alleges are exclusively facts. This is closer to 1st amendment protections around satire as the Chat GPT page says itself the software is in a "research phase". Once the assumption is placed that this is a source of objectively factual information (like say, a newspaper) THEN you have grounds, but this is a pretty weak defamation argument. He's not in a place to sue, so he's writing a blog post about how he hates liberal censorship, and since AI is a hot new trend, he included it. This is a mixture of buzzfeed-esque hyperbolic clickbait titling, and classic "this new technology will get interest" article building. There are 2 problems being mentioned in this article: Misinformation, and Censorship. We understand both very well, there's just a million opinions on them and many conflict in both cause and course of action. Finally, this is "news" because it presents a common problem in society: Policy and political interests bumping against new technology they don't understand and can barely describe in function. This man is still a fucking clownshow (IMHO, so as to not be sued for libel).