Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
Scholars examine how a dated law shapes liability for artificial intelligence used by social media platforms.
Grok, an AI chatbot designed by xAI, is the subject of recent global scrutiny after generating sexually explicit images of nonconsenting users. Efforts to hold the platform liable hinge on the interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act.
Section 230 generally shields platforms from civil liability for third-party content. For example, under Section 230, Meta generally would not be held liable for illegal speech inciting violence posted on its platform by a user.
This traditional application of Section 230 presumes that a user posts content, and the platform acts as an intermediary content host.
However, artificial intelligence does not fit squarely into this user-host dichotomy. AI disrupts the traditional application of Section 230 in two main ways: AI as a content generator and AI as a content curator.
First, though a user can prompt specific and novel output, AI-generated content cannot be attributed solely to that user. Likewise, the generative-AI (GAI) chatbot also cannot be considered the sole speaker, as its training data does not originate from the platform and generated outputs depend on user prompts. Ambiguity over the identity of the “speaker” undermines the foundation of Section 230 speaker-based liability.
Even when users create content, AI algorithms often determine that content’s reach and impact on the host social media platform. For example, social media platform TikTok’s “For You” feed or video streaming platform YouTube’s recommendation system can rapidly amplify particular posts to massive audiences based on users’ predicted engagement with the content.
The assumption underlying Section 230—that platforms act as neutral conduits of information—becomes questionable when platforms actively design and implement recommendation algorithms that promote or suppress speech.
And some platforms like X now use GAI bots as platform moderators. AI-moderators, like Grok, both police and contribute to platform content as designed by its developers.
Although platforms have no obligation to monitor content under Section 230, the U.S. federal law recently signed by President Donald Trump known as the Take It Down Act imposes liability for a platform’s failure to remove intimate images after explicit notification by the Federal Trade Commission of their existence on the platform.
In this week’s Saturday Seminar, scholars debate the application of Section 230 to platforms employing generative artificial intelligence or recommendation algorithms.
The Saturday Seminar is a weekly feature that aims to put into written form the kind of content that would be conveyed in a live seminar involving regulatory experts. Each week, The Regulatory Review publishes a brief overview of a selected regulatory topic and then distills recent research and scholarly writing on that topic.
Scholar urges policymakers to reduce the role of clinicians in overseeing AI use in health care.
Effective AI governance demands strong federal standards that preserve state authority.
Scholars argue that energy disclosures increase efficiency and competition without slowing AI development.
