4 ms·

It's not the same. The car, road, tires are manufactured for a very specific purpose and they are engineered to exact specifications. People require a license t

It's not the same. The car, road, tires are manufactured for a very specific purpose and they are engineered to exact specifications. People require a license to drive. In all 50 states, you are required to have insurance. Every parameter in the situation you described besides the random event of the nail being there, is controlled as much as reasonably possible to limit risk. Even the nail's existence is considered when the car and tires are engineered and manufactured When you ask the AI to generate something, it's a black box. Even the creators have limited insight into how it will behave or what it will create.

stale2002 3y ago
Change the situation to someone walking down the street and stepping on a nail then. There isn't any laws or regulations forcing people to have licenses for walking, or special nail laws that would allow people to sue nail manufactures, because a nail was dropped on the street. It is not controlled at all. Same should apply to AI. For things that just generate images or text, that should be treated no different than any other word processing or image editing software, which are all completely unregulated. There aren't regulations forcing photoshop to monitor its users to make sure that people aren't making * evil * images.
- averysmallbird 3y ago
  Right. Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    They are protected though is the point. So just like image editing software is not liable for what the users do, so to should even more protections apply to AI. Both should be completely immune and should have protections, and instead of removing protections, protections should be added to make absolutely sure that it is protected before any immunity is removed.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime. Online collaborative word processing and image editing software are protected by Section 230, and that is why they are not forced to actively monitor their user's content for torts even if they moderate shared content otherwise. (Non-collaborative image editing or word processing doesn't incur publisher liability even without Section 230, so Section 230 is irrelevant.) (Section 230 explicitly doesn't affect criminal liability, but it also isn't needed there, since doing some moderation doesn't create a state under criminal law, without Section 230, that would substitute for actual knowledge, the way it does in tort law.)
- llbbdd 3y ago
  Photoshop is a funny example because it will actually warn you if you open up a file that looks like paper currency.

stale2002 3y ago

Change the situation to someone walking down the street and stepping on a nail then. There isn't any laws or regulations forcing people to have licenses for walking, or special nail laws that would allow people to sue nail manufactures, because a nail was dropped on the street. It is not controlled at all. Same should apply to AI. For things that just generate images or text, that should be treated no different than any other word processing or image editing software, which are all completely unregulated. There aren't regulations forcing photoshop to monitor its users to make sure that people aren't making * evil * images.

averysmallbird 3y ago
Right. Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime.
- stale2002 3y ago
  They are protected though is the point. So just like image editing software is not liable for what the users do, so to should even more protections apply to AI. Both should be completely immune and should have protections, and instead of removing protections, protections should be added to make absolutely sure that it is protected before any immunity is removed.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime. Online collaborative word processing and image editing software are protected by Section 230, and that is why they are not forced to actively monitor their user's content for torts even if they moderate shared content otherwise. (Non-collaborative image editing or word processing doesn't incur publisher liability even without Section 230, so Section 230 is irrelevant.) (Section 230 explicitly doesn't affect criminal liability, but it also isn't needed there, since doing some moderation doesn't create a state under criminal law, without Section 230, that would substitute for actual knowledge, the way it does in tort law.)
llbbdd 3y ago
Photoshop is a funny example because it will actually warn you if you open up a file that looks like paper currency.