Intentionally Unintentional: GenAI Exceptionalism and the First Amendment
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866912415676891136 |
|---|---|
| author | Atkinson, David Hwang, Jena D. Morrison, Jacob |
| author_facet | Atkinson, David Hwang, Jena D. Morrison, Jacob |
| contents | This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant First Amendment protections to outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment speech right to receive the outputs. We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government's ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2506_05211 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Intentionally Unintentional: GenAI Exceptionalism and the First Amendment Atkinson, David Hwang, Jena D. Morrison, Jacob Computers and Society Artificial Intelligence This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant First Amendment protections to outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment speech right to receive the outputs. We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government's ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms. |
| title | Intentionally Unintentional: GenAI Exceptionalism and the First Amendment |
| topic | Computers and Society Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05211 |