Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

lawfaremedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

#11

Post by lovich »

iAMkenough wrote: post #7
lovich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because I didn’t write it doesn’t mean it’s not my speech. Bruh. Yea it does. You’re throwing prompts into a non deterministic text generator. You explicitly are not making the speech.

Is copying and pasting someone else’s words and publishing it on your website or personal profile not First Amendment protected speech?

You’re quoting someone else’s speech. The quotation is your speech, but the literal words were not.

I’m actually fine with the idea that people are quoting LLMs but there’s this conflation I find many people where they treat the LLMs output as their own literal thoughts.

The language around this distinction is clunky currently so if you meant the former point I agree, but I had interpreted the comment I was responding to as the latter.

Re: If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

#13

Post by garkotipankaj »

lovich wrote: post #5
mock-possum wrote: post #2

> A growing body of legal scholarship argues that large language model (LLM) outputs are not “speech” under the First Amendment and therefore may be regulated without the scrutiny ordinarily applied to restrictions on expression Isn’t ‘speech’ what happens when one party chooses to share their words with another? If I use chat gpt to generate a sentence, then deliver the sentence to someone else to be read, have I no…

> Just because I didn’t write it doesn’t mean it’s not my speech. Bruh. Yea it does. You’re throwing prompts into a non deterministic text generator. You explicitly are not making the speech.

if someone asks their assistant to send you an email on their behalf, whose speech was it?

Re: If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

#14

Post by garkotipankaj »

garkotipankaj wrote: post #13
lovich wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because I didn’t write it doesn’t mean it’s not my speech. Bruh. Yea it does. You’re throwing prompts into a non deterministic text generator. You explicitly are not making the speech.

if someone asks their assistant to send you an email on their behalf, whose speech was it?

btw "non-deterministic text generator" also describes humans perfectly. if it didn't you'd be less stupid.

Re: If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

#15

Post by lovich »

garkotipankaj wrote: post #14
garkotipankaj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if someone asks their assistant to send you an email on their behalf, whose speech was it?

btw "non-deterministic text generator" also describes humans perfectly. if it didn't you'd be less stupid.

> if it didn't you'd be less stupid.

Hey, fuck you too buddy.

And if you, as an executive with an assistant, asked the assistant to draft the speech and they added in something that got you in hot water later, I’d fully expect you as the executive to claim it was the assistants speech and in no way represented you or your firm.

Re: If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

#16

Post by mock-possum »

lovich wrote: post #11
iAMkenough wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is copying and pasting someone else’s words and publishing it on your website or personal profile not First Amendment protected speech?

You’re quoting someone else’s speech. The quotation is your speech, but the literal words were not. I’m actually fine with the idea that people are quoting LLMs but there’s this conflation I find many people where they treat the LLMs output as their own literal thoughts. The language around this distinction is clunky currently so if you meant the former point I agree, but I had interpreted the comment I was respondin…

> The quotation is your speech, but the literal words were not ... I’m actually fine with the idea that people are quoting LLMs

yeah this I agree with and am familiar with, and I guess I'm guilty of just assuming that this is what people are talking about when they say that LLM-generated stuff is their own speech - because,

> people where they treat the LLMs output as their own literal thoughts

just seems like a different issue altogether. lying about the provenance of something isn't a matter of speech, it's a matter of - I don't know, deception / dishonesty. It's like a separate issue.

very interesting that we both sort of saw it different ways though.

Post reply on HN