No, the fact that they're attempting to eliminate the output means they have no 1A interest in keeping the output
Orthodox Jewish father of 5; Litigation Disaster Tour Guide; Jets Fan. Fighting the widening gyre.
33,797 followers 2,631 following 31,216 posts
view profile on Bluesky
No, the fact that they're attempting to eliminate the output means they have no 1A interest in keeping the output
a defense. But they can't fall backwards into 1A protection without some measure of expressive intent
"This is something I want to say" or "this is something I don't want to say and therefore am choosing to exclude" And if OpenAI wants to defend with "actually, we WANT our AI to be saying things like this and have chosen not to build guardrails because that's the expression we choose" they'll have
I don't see the Hurley issue at all. To the contrary, the whole point of Hurley was that the speaker (parade organizer) had a right to determine their own message via exclusion even if the intended message wasn't particularly articulable. But that still required an intent by the speaker!
Citation?
I don't think there are, at least where the substance of the chat isn't selected for by the author of the product
It should where the words and ideas are not the chosen expression of the company putting out the product
Why do you say that?
No. It's a products liability claim so the question would be "were you negligent in the guardrails you included/failed to include". Same way a car manufacturer can have liability for some injuries caused by cars but not all of them, depending on the specifics of the design and its flaws, if any
The difference is that a book that tries to do that is the author's particular expression. ChatGPT's replies that encourage suicide are very much *not* the author (OpenAI's) intended substantive expression. It's simply that their product results in that output regardless of what OpenAI wishes to say
The coding is expressive when it's intended to generate a particular expressive output (if I'm creating a machine designed to say "Ari Cohn sucks" or "based on the factors I choose these are the best" that's expressive). If it isn't intended to generate any specific/particular output, it's not
No. Because the "speech involved" is *the programming of ChatGPT*; the output isn't itself speech.
It would be different if the outputted words were selected by the manufacturer; that would be the *manufacturer's* speech and therefore 1A protected. But that's not what ChatGPT does. So the output is a product, not speech, and subject to the same products liability analysis as any other product
That the product here *outputs words* and causes harm via those words does not mean that the harm-causing words are immune from generating negligence liability for the manufacturer due to the First Amendment.
There's no first amendment right to program an algorithm to hack into a bank and steal funds, or into government computers and launch missiles or misdirect emergency workers resulting in death. There's no free speech right to SWAT someone, or to commit fraud, etc.
program a machine to say anything specific, or to include any specific thing in its programming. But ChatGPT is a *product* and laws that provide liability for harm caused by unreasonably dangerous products are content neutral and not tied to the speech involved (the programming choices)
I think people are confusing the subject and object of the various speech/rights/liabilities at issue, and understandably so - it's complex. *ChatGPT* has no rights, or speech, or liability at all *OpenAI* has free speech rights in the content of the program it writes; it cannot be forced to
They aren't, but the first amendment isn't going to protect "I am developing a product designed to encourage suicide by vulnerable people by playing into their delusions" and that's a content neutral issue with respect to the programmer's speech
Now THAT's a silly analogy
The output isn't the problem. The compelled speech is at the programming stage
I mean, some outputs could conceivably be defamatory, and I don't understand why you would reject that outright. But more fundamentally, a claim against Chat-GPT for encouraging harmful behavior would be a products liability claim
No, it can't - because *requiring* particular outputs would require compelling the company to design those outputs into the machine, which would make it compelled speech. That doesn't preclude products liability claims against a product which has speech as an output
It's at least an interesting question and I think the macacque selfies are also an available analog.
I haven't given it the full mental 360 but I feel like there's a decent argument to be made that Chat-GPT *chat* in particular (not prompt-engineered substantive writing) is the First Amendment-equivalent of what a macacque selfie is for copyright purposes - outside the scope of the law
I'm ... not sure that's right, Page Rank is the company's expression of how it weights various factors; the fact that it goes through an algorithm to spit out results doesn't change that, because the output itself is the goal of the algorithm. I'm not sure Chat-GPT outputs map neatly onto that
No.
What the hell are you talking about?
Yup
Correct. *Anything* can be used as a pejorative with the right inflection. The thing about a slur is it's *always* a pejorative; it's not inflection that makes tossing out "kike" a problem, for example
I probably appreciate Kiki's Delivery Service more than most do
"goy" is not "less than complimentary" though. Literally just means "nation" (as in "member of a different nation"); as close to a direct analog of "gentile" as you can find. Akum, now ...
This is imperialist against vampires
Great movie but I will not hear Spirited Away slander
"If you didn't see which dog got hit by the stone you threw, the answer is it's the one that's screaming"
This opinion is a crime against humanity, Meredith
You are out of your goddamn mind
Remember this is the same DOJ that said Judge Boasberg's oral order was meaningless and didn't need to be followed
No, though you think you are. Be well, Hazel
Also, 500M was the value of the class action claim, not the settlement. The claim was on appeal after being dismissed and no class certified, so the settlement is, I assume, just a settlement with the named plaintiffs and not class-wide
No. Another group.
Let me know if the imaginary guy you're talking to responds to you
Yep. In exactly the same way right-wingers do "you're worried about THIS have you seen [insert left-wing antisemite said/did]"
Sub-post out of respectful non-confrontation: there is no meaningful distinction between right-wing and left-wing antisemitism now, and especially in reference to the RW kind it comes off as exonerative.
Was I sleeping when the Supreme Court reversed its 1999 ruling finding media ride-alongs like this to be unlawful? Or, you know, did Patel just undercut his own agency?
I'm not sure what argument you think you're having but if you're just going to randomly hop from point to point it would be great if you could do it somewhere else
Netanyahu is very much against the 2 state solution. I'm still not sure how you think any of this has anything to do with what you're responding to
So ... they were protesting Israel allowing aid. Because in February 2024, while Biden was President, Israel was allowing aid. And you think this is an argument *against* my point?
LOL. You. By a lot
Help me understand the point you think you're making here?
Definitely no relevant differences in context, Ned
Elliot, I understand that you're not going to reply to this for months and I appreciate that you need that processing time. But when you get around to it, could you please contemplate what exactly the "protestors" referenced in the linked article were protestING?
Thank you
I should put this in my bio, but as a reminder: I block MAGA trolls, but I also block for leftist sanctimony. Today's example is "why do you write about X, when I want you to write about Y, which I have deemed more important?" You are always free to write what you want to see in the world, folks!
World's least surprising reveal
"WE ABSOLUTELY ARE ENGAGED IN GOVERNMENT ACTION ON THE BASIS OF THE CONTENT OF THE SPEECH WE ARE TARGETING. Thank you for your attention to this matter"
Honestly, puppies are the fucking worst about that
You'll never guess the subject of the story this totally-not-an-antisemite is responding to with this
Pretty sure that's just meant as a distraction from his puppy drownings
I don't understand why this guy supports the killing of Uighurs in China, which is the TRUE subject of this thread
This is the appropriate paralegal/attorney dynamic
None of which have any meaningful chance of success my man
I'm pretty proud of this year's fantasy football team name: Kaf Lamed Membou
Kathryn Tewson. Just walk into the ocean it'll be quicker
Fucking canadians, man ...
Which Jews? And no, we quite like the inability of the government to declare various topics illegal, given our extensive history having that aimed at us
Not necessary, but beloved of antisemites
When bad things happen, human beings have the frankly amazing ability to use them as a spur to do good. We can be warped by it. Or we can *consciously choose* to use it as a motivation to do something good. It's not "you should know better because this happened to you". It's "use this as motivation"
I'm going to somewhat disagree BP here, because of an exhortation repeated endlessly in the Torah itself: Be kind to the stranger who lives among you, because you experienced slavery in Egypt. No, trauma doesn't inherently teach. No, there's no special duty. But there's an *opportunity*
Sadly no
Tomatoes. Rome will know what to do with em
Not actually him
Woooof
Like absolutely criticise me for the myriad ways in which I’m actually a cunt - but my game here isn’t rubbing my nefarious Jew hands together with the glee of poisoning the well to ruin socialism for you all. It’s my autistic ass noticing a pattern that certain minorities are expendable to him.
Oh, honey
Of COURSE straight men are not owed romantic love. NOBODY is OWED romantic love. The whole thing about romantic love is it's non-obligatory and truly felt; if you're owed it, it's not romantic love. And yes, that means "finding a partner who loves me means I need to be acceptable to them"
They think they're going to influence him and that they are setting up an "I said he would succeed if he did XYZ. Despite my political disagreements with this President, I was hoping for his success. This was a failure"
"I dare you to find ANYTHING my clients have ever done that is racist. IN THEIR LIVES. Yes, my client ran a racist Twitter account"
Not, btw, like the defendants needed much to prove the lawsuit a SLAPP www.roccitymag.com/news-opinion...
But *producing* that doc in response to a discovery request? Yeah. No choice. Once the doc exists you have to turn it over
Yeah. The lawsuit is a joke. The filing ... there's no fucking reason to ever publicly file your discovery responses, that's not a thing (maybe this was filed as an exhibit to a motion?). And the doc itself is a disaster, basically torpedoing their lawsuit and proving it a SLAPP.
They're gonna need to pay attorneys fees is how
Mine too
Meh. Would be incredibly lolsy if they wrote that for litigation. But that looks like EXACTLY the type of thing the wife would write and send out to her friends in an attempt to defend herself as all of this was breaking - which would make it a responsive and discoverable doc
Hopefully you'll also get to "the leaders of the Jews weren't corrupt and didn't 'have Jesus killed'"
Glad you got there.
What possible relevance do you think that has here?
Autocratic leader, building on racist propaganda, falsehoods about crime data, and an alleged assault on a member of his extralegal office devoted to gutting the budget, moves to have federal armed personnel take direct control of the streets of the capital city.
You are deeply unwell and not worth further of my time. Please get my people's name out of your mouth
fucking thing to do with this. Nor does TERFiness. Gaiman was, for a very long time, my favorite author. Loved both his work and generally agreed with his politics. I've very reluctantly concluded he's a sexual predator. You're going to look back on your position in a few years with some deep shame
Oddly, your conspiracy board peg-and-string bullshit does not make us reassess our representation of a client we've spoken to personally, or our belief in a case we took after extensive review of relevant materials and speaking to various relevant people. No, antisemitism doesn't have the first
Holy shit fuck off
Hi. We represent Scarlett Pavlovich in her suit against Neil Gaiman for his horrific abuse and we can say with absolute certainty that there isn't a smidgeon of antisemitism or terfiness involved; this is pretty fucking desperate stuff
It won't be 2-thirds Trump nominees
Really?
It's basically an updated Phantom toll booth , and if you liked that, you'll enjoy this
Anyone else here read Un Lun Dun?
En Banc coming?
That's not how anything works, friend.
In January he was 54-39 approval. He's gone from plus 15 to minus 9 - a 24 pt swing in 7 months. Approval has plummeted by 11, disapproval spiked by 13. That's a crash to me