The Constitution should not be rewritten every time a new communications technology emerges. supreme court I reconfirmed This long-standing principle was also applied during the most recent term in applying the First Amendment to social media. The late Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this persuasively in 2011. pay attention “Regardless of the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the fundamental principles of freedom of speech and press remain the same.”
These principles should be kept in mind by Congressional Republicans and by President Trump’s recently elected artificial intelligence czar, David Sachs, as they shape policy regarding the emerging technology. The First Amendment standards that applied to older communications technologies should also apply to artificial intelligence, especially as it plays an increasingly important role in human expression and learning.
However, revolutionary technological change creates uncertainty and fear. And where there is uncertainty and fear, there will inevitably be unconstitutional regulations. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in at least 45 states introduced Bills to regulate AI have been introduced this year, and 31 states have adopted laws or resolutions regarding the technology. Congress is also considering AI legislation.
Many of these proposals respond to concerns that AI will accelerate the spread of misinformation. While it is understandable to be concerned, misinformation does not qualify for absolute immunity from First Amendment protections. And for good reason: as Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson observed [In1945theFramersoftheConstitutionstatedthat”everymanmustbehisownguardianoftruth”because”wedonottrustourgovernmenttodistinguishbetweentruthandfalsehood”[1945年、憲法制定者らは「私たちにとって真実と偽りを区別してくれる政府を信頼していない」ため、「すべての人は自分自身の真実の監視者でなければならない」と述べた。
Nevertheless, California has enacted law In September, it targeted “deceptive” digitally altered content about political candidates. The law was motivated in part by an AI-altered video parodying Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy that went viral earlier this summer.
Two weeks after the law went into effect, a judge blocked it. write “The principles that protect the right of citizens to criticize their government… apply in the new technological age,” it said, adding that penalties for such criticism “have no place in our system of governance.”
After all, we don’t need new laws regulating most uses of AI. Existing laws are fine. Defamation, fraud, false light and counterfeiting laws already address the potential for deceptive representations to cause real harm. And they apply regardless of whether the deception is enabled by radio broadcasts or by artificial intelligence technology. The constitution must protect new communication technologies, not just the ability to share AI-enhanced political memes. We must also ensure that AI is freely available to pursue knowledge production, another major First Amendment concern.
When we think about guaranteeing freedom of expression, we often think of the right to speak. But the First Amendment goes beyond that. as the supreme court Held in 1969“The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”
Information is the basis of progress. The more we have, the more hypotheses we can propose, test, and generate knowledge.
The Internet, like the printing press, was an innovation that accelerated knowledge. But Congress largely blocked the development of the Internet in the 1990s over concerns that minors would have access to “obscene” content. Fortunately, the Supreme Court I was standing in my way By repealing much of the Communications Decency Act.
In fact, the Supreme Court’s application of the First Amendment to that new technology was so complete that Mike Godwin, attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, threw it out. I wonder “My job is almost done, so should I retire from civil rights work?” Godwin will serve as general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that runs Wikipedia; “We could not exist without the work done by cyberlibertarians in the 1990s to guarantee freedom of expression and widespread access to the Internet,” they wrote. ”
Today, humans are developing technologies that have the potential to generate even more knowledge than the Internet. Knowledge production is no longer limited by the number of humans who can propose and test hypotheses. We can now collaborate with machines to enhance our efforts.
We’re already starting to see results: researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently reported Its AI has enabled labs studying new materials to discover 44% more compounds. Dario Amodei, CEO of AI company Anthropic, said: predict “AI-enabled biology and medicine will allow us to compress into five to 10 years the advances that human biologists would make over the next 50 to 100 years.”
This promise can only be realized if America continues to view the tools of knowledge production as legally inseparable from knowledge itself. Yes, the printing press has created an explosion of “misinformation.” But it also made enlightenment possible.
The First Amendment is America’s great champion. Therefore, governments cannot regulate printing presses any more than they can regulate the words printed on a page. We must extend that standard to the arena where the next great fight for free speech will be fought: artificial intelligence.
Nico Perino is executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and host of “So to speak: The Free Speech Podcast.”
