TL;DR: Conceptualizing generative AI outputs as speech, especially First Amendment protected speech, is an act of social construction. It is not inevitable. We can make other choices -- and we should -- if we want to hold these companies accountable. 2/3

Fabulous 4S panel on Constitutional Futures for Technoscience. I shared some new work growing out of my dissertation research. Working title for the new material is: The Social Construction of AI Law: How the Mind Metaphor and the First Amendment Coverage Debate Shape Deregulatory Futures. 1/3

Fabulous 4S panel on Constitutional Futures for Technoscience. I shared some new work growing out of my dissertation research, The Social Construction of AI Law: How the Mind Metaphor and the First Amendment Coverage Debate Shape Deregulatory Futures.

Anthropic is out with new nonsense about Claude (or the collection of models called Claude) deserving moral consideration and/or be able to feel distress, so my inbox is filling up with journos asking me to comment. I've also got a day job, so here is a brief set of public comments on this: >>

Boston University's Morgan Weiland on why reflexively invoking the First Amendment against the Meta settlement is the wrong critique.

Is the $17.1B Meta settlement a First Amendment problem? BU COM's Dr. Morgan Weiland says no. As Meta leans on personalized rankings and AI moderation, it looks less like an "editor." New op-ed:

Just helping with editing here. These bots aren’t sentient. They’re doing what they’re programmed to do. OpenAI, a private company supposedly bound by laws, committed federal crimes.

they are literally saying ‘give us what we want, or humanity gets it.’

Holding onto this one as I walk into my first class for the semester.