Attributing human-like qualities to chatbots can obscure the human expressive choices involved in their responses. This misunderstanding can extend to legal contexts, where judges may overlook these factors. If chatbots lacked First Amendment protections, it might enable the government to censor critical viewpoints. The outputs not only represent the developers' choices but are also protected under users' rights, including the right to receive information. Efforts like the amicus brief in Garcia v. Character Technologies address these issues by explaining the significance of human roles in shaping chatbot outputs and the resulting free speech implications.
When technology can converse, it appears human-like, creating a tendency to anthropomorphize chatbots. This view can obscure the human choices behind their outputs.
The outputs from chatbots reflect the expressive choices of their creators and users, implicating the users' right to receive information.
Collection
[
|
...
]