In 1991 "artificial" probably meant something like "pre-recorded and re-cut". Which is basically AI voice generation, but at scale. >Do you think this is an un

In 1991 "artificial" probably meant something like "pre-recorded and re-cut". Which is basically AI voice generation, but at scale. >Do you think this is an unreasonable interpretation? Or should Congress be required to list exactly what technologies are prohibited in this context and update that list every time something new comes around? Not OP but this is the right question to ask. My answer is yes, congress is quite literally required to update statute to reflect modern technology (ensuring it conforms to the founding principles of course).