[cthalupa]

The problem is that that isn't what this bill is about - we can have a reasonable discussion on whether an AI written article or tweet or whatever should have the same Section 230 protections - but even things that are human written and do not have their content changed in a material way, and instead are just spellchecked or similar, also fall under this proposed legislation.

[averysmallbird]

Removal of Section 230 immunity is not the same thing as creating or imposing actual liability.

Even if the scope of the exemption is broad, from someone's standpoint, the backend liability is likely to do a fair amount of work in whether a generative AI company could be liable for a particular cause of action.

This is demonstrably true: using that example, Section 230 does not protect text editor software doing spellchecking. However, you don't see a lot of (any?) claims against text editor developers, and there's not really any chill in the development of spellchecking over fear of lawsuits.

(disclosure: staff involved in the bill)

[stale2002]

> Section 230 does not protect text editor software doing spellchecking.

Thats because it is pretty clear that it is the users publishing the content.

If someone wants to make a law that says that all generative AI is created by the user, and therefore only the user is liable for the content, and therefore its not related to section 230, then great that would be an amazing law.

Only someone publishing the generative content should be liable, and then we can not worry about all this section 230 stuff, by just giving complete immunity to the tools creators. Just like how photoshop isn't liable for the stuff that is built using photoshop.

Problem solved.

[cthalupa]

My text editor is not covered under 230 regardless of whether or not it has spellchecking because my text editor is not an online platform. It's a text editor.

I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical argument.