>So, if you write a post, and an AI grammar/spellchecker suggests edits, then the company is no longer protected by Section 230? no, if you write a post and an

>So, if you write a post, and an AI grammar/spellchecker suggests edits, then the company is no longer protected by Section 230? no, if you write a post and an AI grammar/spellchecker "corrects" the post to "DJ Shin raped and murdered a young girl in 1990" then DJ Shin can sue whoever is in control of that spellchecker for defamation. "if the conduct underlying the claim or charge involves the use or provision of generative artificial intelligence by the interactive computer service". I don't see how anybody could interpret that as meaning that the spellchecker is responsible because it corrected a grammatical mistake, unless the spellchecker dramatically altered the meaning of the text. And frankly, I don't see how you could possibly think it's a good idea for a pseudo-random bullshit generator to say whatever it just happens to shit out without the owner being held liable for any damages. Should CNN just be allowed to put whatever the fuck they want on their frontpage with no regards to its legitimacy as long as they can prove it came from a computer program and not a person!?!?!?