Senate rejects bill to strip Section 230 protections for AI in historic vote

• The Senate on Wednesday rejected a bipartisan proposal aimed at eliminating legal protections for artificial intelligence (AI) technology.
• Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley and Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal initially introduced their Section 230 Immunity for AI Act in June, which would have empowered Americans to sue tech platforms for the text and visual content it produces its AI.
• “The bill is troubling because it actively undermines one of the legal foundations of the digital revolution, thereby harming the ability of American innovators to be as innovative and globally competitive as they otherwise would be,” said Adam Thierer , a senior fellow at the R Street Institute. DCNF. “Section 230 is the secret sauce behind America's success in digital markets globally. We must not abandon it lightly.”

The Senate voted down a bipartisan bill aimed at eliminating legal liability protections for artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

They were first introduced by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut No section 230 of the AI ​​Immunity Act in June and Hawley put it on for a unanimous vote Wednesday. The bill would have eliminated Section 230 protections that currently grant immunity to technology platforms responsibility for the text and visual content their AI produces, allowing Americans to file lawsuits against them.

The bill would have had major implications for discourse and innovation, according to previous experts he said the Daily Caller News Foundation. Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that Internet companies cannot be held responsible for the speech of third parties posted on their platforms.

The Artificial Intelligence Immunity Act non-section 230 defines generative AI as “an artificial intelligence system capable of generating text, video, images, audio, and other new media based on prompts or other forms of data provided by an individual”. was a unanimous consent motion, requiring no objections to pass, seconds in the Senate glossary.

The bill would “threaten free speech, content moderation and innovation,” a coalition, which includes technology and freedom advocacy groups, wrote to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Monday. of New York and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. letter. “Far from addressing any clear issue, the bill takes a broad and overly broad approach, avoiding an important public policy debate without sufficiently considering the complexities at stake.”

NetChoice, a group whose members include companies such as Google and TikTok, says the definition is so vague and broad that it could be applied to anything done by computers and even calculators.

“Lawmakers are misdirecting their anger at tech platforms when they should be focusing on how the government is trying to use its power to force companies to do the government's bidding,” said NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo at the DCNF.

It could also crush American innovation, Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, told the DCNF.

“The bill is troubling because it would actively undermine one of the legal foundations of the digital revolution, thereby harming the ability of American innovators to be as innovative and globally competitive as they otherwise would be,” Thierer told the DCNF. “Section 230 is the secret sauce behind America's success in digital markets globally. We must not abandon it lightly.”

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, one of the authors of Section 230, said it should not apply to AI in comments in The Washington Post in March.

“AI tools like ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion and others that are quickly being integrated into popular digital services should not be protected by Section 230,” he told the Post. “And it's not a particularly close call…Section 230 is about protecting users and sites for hosting and organizing user speech” and “has nothing to do with protecting companies from the consequences of their own actions and products”.

Hawley and Blumenthal have it argued that providing Section 230's liability safeguards to AI would protect technology companies from liability for perceived harm from their products.

“We can't make the same mistakes with generative AI that we made with Big Tech in Section 230,” Hawley said. “When these new technologies harm innocent people, companies must be held accountable. The victims deserve their day in court.”

“AI companies should be forced to take responsibility for business decisions as they develop products, without any Section 230 legal shield,” Blumenthal said.

Latest messages from Jason Cohen (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.

JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and good conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-enter your email address for this. The public won't see it and we won't share it.