Adi Robertson

And I think that raises so many more of these questions that do we really want to create a federal ban on being able to create a fictionalized image of somebody?

Defamation law has already come up with text-based generative AI, where if something like ChatGPT tells a lie about you, are you allowed to say they're making things up about me? I can sue. And I think the benefit of defamation law is that there is a really huge framework for hammering out when exactly something is an acceptable lie and when it's not.

Defamation law has already come up with text-based generative AI, where if something like ChatGPT tells a lie about you, are you allowed to say they're making things up about me? I can sue. And I think the benefit of defamation law is that there is a really huge framework for hammering out when exactly something is an acceptable lie and when it's not.

Defamation law has already come up with text-based generative AI, where if something like ChatGPT tells a lie about you, are you allowed to say they're making things up about me? I can sue. And I think the benefit of defamation law is that there is a really huge framework for hammering out when exactly something is an acceptable lie and when it's not.

That, all right, well, would a reasonable person believe that this thing is actually true, or is this really obviously political commentary and hyperbole? I think that we're on at least more solid ground there than we are with just saying, all right, fine, you know what, just ban deepfakes. I do think that still defamation law is complicated.

That, all right, well, would a reasonable person believe that this thing is actually true, or is this really obviously political commentary and hyperbole? I think that we're on at least more solid ground there than we are with just saying, all right, fine, you know what, just ban deepfakes. I do think that still defamation law is complicated.

That, all right, well, would a reasonable person believe that this thing is actually true, or is this really obviously political commentary and hyperbole? I think that we're on at least more solid ground there than we are with just saying, all right, fine, you know what, just ban deepfakes. I do think that still defamation law is complicated.

And every time you open up defamation law, as Donald Trump has once suggested, you end up getting a situation where in a lot of cases it's very powerful people. throwing the law against people who don't necessarily have the money to defend themselves. And in general, I'm cagey about trying to open up defamation law.

And every time you open up defamation law, as Donald Trump has once suggested, you end up getting a situation where in a lot of cases it's very powerful people. throwing the law against people who don't necessarily have the money to defend themselves. And in general, I'm cagey about trying to open up defamation law.

And every time you open up defamation law, as Donald Trump has once suggested, you end up getting a situation where in a lot of cases it's very powerful people. throwing the law against people who don't necessarily have the money to defend themselves. And in general, I'm cagey about trying to open up defamation law.

But it is a place where at least you have a framework that people have spent a very long time talking about.

But it is a place where at least you have a framework that people have spent a very long time talking about.

But it is a place where at least you have a framework that people have spent a very long time talking about.

When a new technology comes along, there are a large number of people who don't necessarily think about it in terms of the First Amendment or of speech protections where you're able to say, oh, well, this thing is just categorically different. We've never had technology like this before. The First Amendment shouldn't apply. And.

When a new technology comes along, there are a large number of people who don't necessarily think about it in terms of the First Amendment or of speech protections where you're able to say, oh, well, this thing is just categorically different. We've never had technology like this before. The First Amendment shouldn't apply. And.

When a new technology comes along, there are a large number of people who don't necessarily think about it in terms of the First Amendment or of speech protections where you're able to say, oh, well, this thing is just categorically different. We've never had technology like this before. The First Amendment shouldn't apply. And.

I always hope we don't go there with the technology because I think that the problems that come from just blanket outlawing it tend to be really huge. I don't know. I think that we're still waiting to see how disruptive AI tech actually is. We're still waiting to see whether it is meaningfully different from something like Photoshop, even though it seems intuitively like it absolutely should be.

I always hope we don't go there with the technology because I think that the problems that come from just blanket outlawing it tend to be really huge. I don't know. I think that we're still waiting to see how disruptive AI tech actually is. We're still waiting to see whether it is meaningfully different from something like Photoshop, even though it seems intuitively like it absolutely should be.

I always hope we don't go there with the technology because I think that the problems that come from just blanket outlawing it tend to be really huge. I don't know. I think that we're still waiting to see how disruptive AI tech actually is. We're still waiting to see whether it is meaningfully different from something like Photoshop, even though it seems intuitively like it absolutely should be.

but we're still waiting to see that play out.