So who's responsible if a car is driving down the road and a tire explodes causing the car to cause an accident. Should the road, car, driver, or nail be responsible? Should the nail manufacture also be thrown in the mix? There is a thing called proportionality as well as the progress of science and arts. This is generally a well settled principle.
back
4 comments
It's not the same. The car, road, tires are manufactured for a very specific purpose and they are engineered to exact specifications. People require a license to drive. In all 50 states, you are required to have insurance. Every parameter in the situation you described besides the random event of the nail being there, is controlled as much as reasonably possible to limit risk. Even the nail's existence is considered when the car and tires are engineered and manufactured
When you ask the AI to generate something, it's a black box. Even the creators have limited insight into how it will behave or what it will create.
Change the situation to someone walking down the street and stepping on a nail then.
There isn't any laws or regulations forcing people to have licenses for walking, or special nail laws that would allow people to sue nail manufactures, because a nail was dropped on the street. It is not controlled at all.
Same should apply to AI. For things that just generate images or text, that should be treated no different than any other word processing or image editing software, which are all completely unregulated.
There aren't regulations forcing photoshop to monitor its users to make sure that people aren't making * evil * images.
Right. Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime.
> Word processing or image editing software aren't protected by Section 230, and they aren't forced to monitor their users for crime.
Online collaborative word processing and image editing software are protected by Section 230, and that is why they are not forced to actively monitor their user's content for torts even if they moderate shared content otherwise.
(Non-collaborative image editing or word processing doesn't incur publisher liability even without Section 230, so Section 230 is irrelevant.)
(Section 230 explicitly doesn't affect criminal liability, but it also isn't needed there, since doing some moderation doesn't create a state under criminal law, without Section 230, that would substitute for actual knowledge, the way it does in tort law.)
They are protected though is the point.
So just like image editing software is not liable for what the users do, so to should even more protections apply to AI.
Both should be completely immune and should have protections, and instead of removing protections, protections should be added to make absolutely sure that it is protected before any immunity is removed.
Photoshop is a funny example because it will actually warn you if you open up a file that looks like paper currency.
It's been settled mostly by common law decisions in courts. Which allows for consideration of whether say, the tire advertised itself as nail-proof or the automotive manufacture knew the car model was uniquely susceptible to going off the road but ignored the risk.
The problem with Section 230 is that it short circuits all of this consideration of proportionality and says "the driver was always responsible."
I'm unsure why the downvotes on my previous comment, but de minimis is already baked into section 230. If you look at the judicial history of section 230 courts use to routinely rule in favor of it until the roomates.com case.
Well, I wish we had more police policing unsecured loads, as that is the main reason why there is so much stuff on the road.
Incidentally having a closed van reduces surface areas to leave a box of nails and forget it, reducing the amount of nails spilled.
In real life the answer is:
Sue the tire manufacturer, sue whoever did maintenance on the car, and if the owner was negligent then sue the owner through their insurance.