{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60baafd7d3cdd0001b29d9ee/6409587cfbc96d0011d945f9?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"Does Section 230 Protect ChatGPT?","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/60baafd7d3cdd0001b29d9ee/1678333868468-27e70719bbb3562fa804f6596a264e9a.jpeg?height=200","description":"<p>During recent oral arguments in&nbsp;Gonzalez v. Google,&nbsp;a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of liability protections for internet platforms, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked a thought-provoking question. Does Section 230, the statute that shields websites from liability for third-party content, apply to a generative AI model like ChatGPT?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Luckily, Matt Perault of the&nbsp;Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill had already been thinking about this&nbsp;question and&nbsp;<a href=\"https://www.lawfareblog.com/section-230-wont-protect-chatgpt\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\" target=\"_blank\">published a&nbsp;<em>Lawfare</em>&nbsp;article</a>&nbsp;arguing that 230’s protections wouldn’t extend to content generated by AI. <em>Lawfare</em> Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Matt and Jess Miers, legal advocacy counsel at the Chamber of Progress, to debate whether ChatGPT’s output constitutes third-party content, whether companies like OpenAI&nbsp;should&nbsp;be immune for the output of their products, and why you might want to sue a chatbot in the first place.</p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}