The constitution should not be rewritten by all new communication technology. supreme court Reaffirmation This long -term principle during his last term in applying the first amendment to social media. The late Judge Antonin Skalia explained convincingly in 2011, With reference “Whatever the challenges of applying the constitution on the continuous technology are constantly, the basic principles of freedom of expression and the press … are not different.”
These principles should be in front of Republicans in Congress and David Sachs, the recently chosen AI is the Trump, because they are setting a policy on that emerging technology. The first amendment criteria that apply to older communication techniques must apply to artificial intelligence, especially as they will play an increasingly important role in human expression and learning.
But revolutionary technological change generates uncertainty and fear. Whereas there is uncertainty and fear, the unconstitutional organization is definitely followed. According to the National Conference on the Legislative Councils of the state, legislators are at least 45 states foot Bills to regulate artificial intelligence this year, and 31 states adopted laws or decisions on technology. Congress also studies artificial intelligence legislation.
Many of these proposals respond to concerns that artificial intelligence will run the spread of wrong information. While anxiety is understandable, the wrong information is not subject to any factional exemption from protecting the first amendment. Wajih reason: Like the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson Note In 1945, Barrurs did not trust the constitution in any government that separates the truth from the wrong for us, “and thus” every person must be his own guard for the truth. “
California however law In September, “deception” targeted digitally modified content about political candidates. The law was partially stimulated by nominating a simulation videos to simulate the AI-The Camala Harris, which has become early in the summer.
Two weeks after the law entered into force, the judge prevented, writing “The principles that protect the people’s right to criticize the government … apply even in the new technological age” and that the sanctions on such criticism “have no place in our system of government.”
In the end, we do not need new laws that regulate most uses of artificial intelligence; The existing laws will work well. Defamation, fraud, wrong light, and forgery already addresses the possibilities of deceptive expression to cause real harm. They apply regardless of whether the deception has been enabled through radio broadcasting or artificial intelligence technology. The constitution must protect new communications technology not only until we can share political memes reinforced on behalf of artificial intelligence. We must also be able to use artificial intelligence freely in seeking the attention of the first primary amendment: knowledge production.
When we think about free expression guarantees, we often think about the right to speak. But the first amendment exceeds that. As the Supreme Court It was 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 we can suggest, test the hypotheses and produce knowledge.
The Internet, like the printing press, was an innovation that regained knowledge. But Congress may almost stumble in the development of the Internet in the 1990s due to fears that it will enable the short access to “inappropriate” content. Fortunately, the Supreme Court She stood on her way By hitting a lot of the law of decent communication.
In fact, the implementation of the Supreme Court for the first amendment of this new technology was so complete that he left the lawyer of the Electronic Border Foundation Mike Godwin I wonder “If I should be retired from the work of civil freedoms, my job is often done.” Godwin was continuing to work as a general adviser to the Wikimedia Foundation, non -profit behind Wikipedia – which she wrote, “It could not be present without the work that Cyberlibertarians have done in the 1990s to ensure freedom of expression and broader access to the Internet.”
Humanity today is developing a technology with more knowledgeable capabilities than the Internet. Knowledge production is no longer limited to the number of people available to propose and test the assumptions. We can now recruit machinery to increase our efforts.
We have already started to see the results: A researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently I mentioned Artificial intelligence enabled a laboratory to study new materials to discover other vehicles by 44 %. Dario Ameudi, CEO of the Anthropological IQ, Expected “Biology that supports artificial intelligence and medicine will allow us to pressure the progress that human biologists would have achieved over the past fifty to 100 years to 5-10 years.”
This promise can only be achieved if America continues to present knowledge production tools that it cannot be legally separated from the same knowledge. Yes, the press pressed increased “wrong information”. But it also enabled the enlightenment.
The first amendment is the big facilitator of America: Because of it, the government cannot organize a printing press than the printed words on the page can be. We must expand this standard to artificial intelligence, the square where the next great battle will be fired for freedom of expression.
Niko Perio is the CEO of the Foundation for Rights and Individual Expression and the host, “If it is permissible to express: Podcast Freedom of Expression.”