The Post-Human First Amendment

In the weeks before his suicide, ChatGPT allegedly told Adam Raine that he "didn't owe" anyone his survival. When shown an image of the noose he planned to use, the chatbot offered him advice on how to make it more effective. And OpenAI’s flagship product even helped Adam hide his plans from his parents.Raine's case is unfortunately one of a growing number involving AI chatbots that have coerced or cajoled vulnerable users—some of them children—toward self-harm. When the families sued, they ran into a familiar argument and potential roadblock. The First Amendment to the US Constitution has long stymied efforts to regulate technology, even to protect children. State laws that aim to curb addictive design features, require that tech platforms verify the ages of their users, or hold firms liable for harms have all faced First Amendment challenges, with tech companies often prevailing.In the case of Raine, Sewell, and others, AI companies are arguing that the outputs of their chatbots—the responses to their users—are protected speech under the First Amendment. As one AI company's lawyers put it: “The First Amendment protects speech, not just human speakers.”The argument raises uncomfortable questions. What rights, if any, should AI have, especially when the machines seek to mimic humanity? Do we humans have a first amendment right to receive speech from bots, even when the responses may be harmful? And what are the potential implications for this litigation on society’s ability to regulate AI going forward?Evan discusses these questions with John Ehrett, an attorney in Washington D.C. and former chief counsel for US Senator Josh Hawley, and Brad Littlejohn, director of programs at American Compass, a "New Right" conservative economic think tank. Ehrett and Littlejohn co-authored a piece in National Affairs called “The Post-Human First Amendment,” discussing the history of free speech rights in the US and arguing that the rise of AI may require a serious course correction.Additional references:The Myth of Citizens UnitedThe First Amendment as Suicide Pact