If AI Outputs Aren't Speech, Who Has to Prove They're Human?

but there also needs to be some sort of stamp whereby a human effectively grants "power of identity"-style rights to a given agent; that agent would be protected under the first amendment but the human would be liable in full for its actions.

in other words we would be legally enshrining the privileged status of human (as distinct from machine) output, but that privilege has to have legal/financial gravity otherwise the number of agents claiming it will inflate.

Isn’t ‘speech’ what happens when one party chooses to share their words with another? If I use chat gpt to generate a sentence, then deliver the sentence to someone else to be read, have I not ‘spoken’ to them? Just because I didn’t write it doesn’t mean it’s not my speech.

> The no-speech position argues that because no person stands behind a model’s words at the moment of generation, those words are not First Amendment-covered “speech.”

No person, except the user who used the tool to generate the content, surely? What the user does with the content they create is up to them - but the tool communicating the result of the work to the user is certainly not ‘speech’ - unless it’s the user ‘speaking’ to themself. The user is the author of the output, effectively. It only becomes ‘speech’ once they choose to make it available to others.

Silly of you to assume you ever had the constitutional right to share political opinions you agree with.

And let's not start with a blog post or website comment. Those aren't speech because they aren't even written by human hands they are instead just using a very fancy elctro-mechanical mechanism for transferring a series of electric waves from one individual to another across the palent.