Off the top of my head, I share your colleagues’ intuition that US courts will be extremely skeptical of a law that says you can’t publish (certain persuasion-y) media created by AI.
But I actually agree with you not to foreclose the option. If the law is narrow and the benefit is large, it could be constitutional.
One thing that might be worth looking into is mandated provenance disclosures. Assuming the shape of AI (super)persuasion that I currently think is likely (potentially more persuasive than the most persuasive human but not like arbitrary hacks), prominent provenance disclosures might be enough in the medium term, combined with voluntary technical countermeasures.
Off the top of my head, I share your colleagues’ intuition that US courts will be extremely skeptical of a law that says you can’t publish (certain persuasion-y) media created by AI.
But I actually agree with you not to foreclose the option. If the law is narrow and the benefit is large, it could be constitutional.
One thing that might be worth looking into is mandated provenance disclosures. Assuming the shape of AI (super)persuasion that I currently think is likely (potentially more persuasive than the most persuasive human but not like arbitrary hacks), prominent provenance disclosures might be enough in the medium term, combined with voluntary technical countermeasures.
Is CBA really relevant to constitutional cases?
Kind of. Ask a chatbot about “intermediate scrutiny” in first amendment cases.