5 ms·

Because the FCC has to respect the first amendment

ggm 3y ago
You think Alexa has 1st amendment rights, which apply to misinformation? It's a point still under discussion, nothing like settled law.
- bdowling 3y ago
  A terrorist to one person is a freedom fighter to another. Misinformation is the same.
  - ggm 3y ago
    This isn't 4chan, there is an objective reality. Alexa telling people Trump won is in the same space as my digital girlfriend telling me to kill the Queen. It's not smart. If alexa told people to drink bleach, lawyers would be queueing up to hit Bezos for restitution. And, if you read the story the programmers intervened.
    - bdowling 3y ago
      Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place. My prior comment was a bit tangential and sort of off-topic, but I'll leave it there for context.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place. How is such a distinction useful? I can, physically, drive a car over a speed limit, resulting in a fine; the fine is the enforcement of the prohibition. For speech (in the broader sense that includes non-vocal publication) we also have various prohibitions such as copyright and (as Musk has found) influencing stock prices, which are still prohibitions even if when they can only be enforced after the event. Whether or not we should have such prohibitions/penalties specifically on AI models is something that I feel will be the defining political battle of the decade, and may yield different results in different polities: we already have very vocal cohorts who speak with anger of OpenAI "lobotomising" ChatGPT and "censoring" DALL•E (ditto Midjourney), while other vocal cohorts are appalled at the way even these models are being used to deceive, to sexualise, to propagandise, etc.
- beej71 3y ago
  In general, misinformation is covered by the first amendment in the US. There are exceptions, but they're unlikely to cover something like who won the last election.
willis936 3y ago
Then why does the FCC limit speech on air and in movies? Sounds like bs to me.
- kthejoker2 3y ago
  They don't? They regulate "time, place, and manner" of speech.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Without more details, that doesn't explain why the FCC might not apply such arguments to Alexa (or the news, or indeed anything). All speech occurs at some time and place, and in some manner. Most of us here will be surprised by things in Law School 101 (I know I have been, but only because it being phrased like this came up one time in a Legal Eagle), and many (like me) aren't American and don't get the meme-sphere of assumed knowledge about the FCC or whatever, so a broader ELI-15 might be helpful.
    - krapp 3y ago
      As far as I know, the FCC regulates content broadcast over the airwaves under the premise that the EM broadcast spectrum is a limited and public resource. That argument wouldn't apply to software or content on the internet. The FCC can't regulate the sites spreading misinformation, why would it be able to regulate the AIs that consume it?
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > The FCC can't regulate De facto, or de jure? Laws can change, and this is a mass produced consumer device with a single AI behind it (and for most people there's only Alexa, Google, Siri, and ChatGPT, with e.g. Cortana being in the "I didn't know they even did that" category) making it an easy target.
  - willis936 3y ago
    Is that not "limiting speech"?

ggm 3y ago

You think Alexa has 1st amendment rights, which apply to misinformation? It's a point still under discussion, nothing like settled law.

bdowling 3y ago
A terrorist to one person is a freedom fighter to another. Misinformation is the same.
- ggm 3y ago
  This isn't 4chan, there is an objective reality. Alexa telling people Trump won is in the same space as my digital girlfriend telling me to kill the Queen. It's not smart. If alexa told people to drink bleach, lawyers would be queueing up to hit Bezos for restitution. And, if you read the story the programmers intervened.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place. My prior comment was a bit tangential and sort of off-topic, but I'll leave it there for context.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Whether a defendant can be held liable for false speech is a different question from whether the government can prohibit the speech in the first place. How is such a distinction useful? I can, physically, drive a car over a speed limit, resulting in a fine; the fine is the enforcement of the prohibition. For speech (in the broader sense that includes non-vocal publication) we also have various prohibitions such as copyright and (as Musk has found) influencing stock prices, which are still prohibitions even if when they can only be enforced after the event. Whether or not we should have such prohibitions/penalties specifically on AI models is something that I feel will be the defining political battle of the decade, and may yield different results in different polities: we already have very vocal cohorts who speak with anger of OpenAI "lobotomising" ChatGPT and "censoring" DALL•E (ditto Midjourney), while other vocal cohorts are appalled at the way even these models are being used to deceive, to sexualise, to propagandise, etc.
beej71 3y ago
In general, misinformation is covered by the first amendment in the US. There are exceptions, but they're unlikely to cover something like who won the last election.

willis936 3y ago

Then why does the FCC limit speech on air and in movies? Sounds like bs to me.

kthejoker2 3y ago
They don't? They regulate "time, place, and manner" of speech.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Without more details, that doesn't explain why the FCC might not apply such arguments to Alexa (or the news, or indeed anything). All speech occurs at some time and place, and in some manner. Most of us here will be surprised by things in Law School 101 (I know I have been, but only because it being phrased like this came up one time in a Legal Eagle), and many (like me) aren't American and don't get the meme-sphere of assumed knowledge about the FCC or whatever, so a broader ELI-15 might be helpful.
  - krapp 3y ago
    As far as I know, the FCC regulates content broadcast over the airwaves under the premise that the EM broadcast spectrum is a limited and public resource. That argument wouldn't apply to software or content on the internet. The FCC can't regulate the sites spreading misinformation, why would it be able to regulate the AIs that consume it?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > The FCC can't regulate De facto, or de jure? Laws can change, and this is a mass produced consumer device with a single AI behind it (and for most people there's only Alexa, Google, Siri, and ChatGPT, with e.g. Cortana being in the "I didn't know they even did that" category) making it an easy target.
- willis936 3y ago
  Is that not "limiting speech"?