4 ms·

You’re being intentionally obtuse and not addressing the point OP made, which is that AI is likely to be interpreted by the courts as a form of expression which

You’re being intentionally obtuse and not addressing the point OP made, which is that AI is likely to be interpreted by the courts as a form of expression which makes it protected by the first amendment. It would be similarly a violation if, say, the sale of newspapers was regulated. I suspect you know this but you want to make a glib Twitter style comment rather than have a real discussion.

da_chicken 3y ago
No, I'm refusing to be obtuse in claiming that this regulation only about software. It's about selling a product or service that a business claims is performing something accurately and correctly. We all know it's about money. There wouldn't be any interest at all if people didn't think there were billions of dollars to make selling this stuff. Your right to free speech is not magically absolute. It does not supercede the rights to life, security, and safety. You can't sell snake oil. You can't claim your product does something it doesn't, or that your service does something it doesn't. Nobody wants to an AI doctor that gets the diagnosis wrong half of the time, or an AI pharmacist that forgets to account for drug contraindications sometimes to be available for sale on the market. Nobody wants an AI self-driving car that rams into a pedestrian without even slowing down. Nobody wants AI load-testing software to forget that steel bolts aren't infinitely ductile. If you want to bring a product to market, you don't get to just slap a "NO WARRANTY IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED" on it because it's software. That never actually worked.