AI Speech Protection Questioned by Legal Authorities

    Published on:

    Legal expert Peter Salibu emphasizes the need for strict regulation of AI-generated content and questions First Amendment protections for it amid growing concerns about potential risks. .

    First Amendment protections for content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are under scrutiny from legal experts given the technology's rapid evolution and increasing capabilities.

    Also read: Creepy revelation that AI models seem to understand when tested by humans

    Peter Salib, assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, argues that proper regulation of AI is needed to avoid potentially dire consequences.

    the core of the problem

    The debate centers on whether AI output, particularly output produced by large-scale language models (LLMs), should be considered First Amendment-protected speech. Because these outputs are arguably speech-like and expressive, some believe they should be afforded the same protection as human speech.

    But Saleb warns that treating AI output as protected audio will make it difficult to effectively regulate these systems. He calls attention to the growing dangers associated with artificial intelligence. Large-scale language models can create new chemical weapons, assist non-programmers in hacking critical infrastructure, and engage in complex operations games.

    Additionally, the potential risks to human life, limb, and liberty are significant.According to Salib the studythreats posed by near-future generative AI systems include bioterrorism, pandemic virus manufacturing, and even fully automated drone-based political assassinations.

    Adjusting AI audio output

    Salib argues that while the AI's output may seem expressive and talkative, it is not a human voice. AI software is built to say anything, as opposed to software created by individuals with specific ideas in mind. Open-ended questions allow users to tease out information from the model that they didn't know or hadn't considered. Because of this distinction, AI speech output is different from human speech and is therefore not entitled to the highest degree of constitutional protection.

    But he suggests that regulation should focus on AI outputs, rather than preventing systems from producing fraudulent outputs in the first place. It is currently impossible to create legal rules that mandate secure code for AI systems, so rules must dictate what AI can say. Depending on the level of danger posed by the output, the law may require that the model remain unpublished or, in some cases, be destroyed. This approach would incentivize AI companies to invest in safety research and rigorous protocols.

    Additionally, Seirib has been invited to speak on why AI output is not protected audio.

    According to the article, AI-generated systems are advanced technologies that have great potential for all kinds of human endeavors. It could accelerate economic growth, lead to new discoveries, treat diseases, and even help billions of people escape poverty. However, like all new technologies, power comes with risks as well as rewards.

    The article states that various AI disasters are imminent, but preventable. But that's only if governments succeed in introducing sensible safety regulations and scientists succeed in creating the innovations needed to implement those regulations. The article goes on to say that the First Amendment poses a serious threat to such innovation.


    Leave a Reply

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here