2024哈佛大學生成式 AI 將打破互聯(lián)網(wǎng)

GenerativeAIWillBreaktheInternet:BeyondSection230 Section230 Whatisan“interactivecomputer Whatisa“publisheror Whatis“anotherinformationcontent ABreakingPoint:TwoSection230 WhetherGenerativeAISystemsare“InformationProviders”underSection WhetherGenerativeAISystemsFallOutsidetheScope

AI230第230條概述.AB斷點POTWOSECTION230AI230“S.Wh?th?rG?n?rati??A?oyst?msca??l?tsiy?th?ov???Section230“PublisherorSpeaker”

Thelawthat“createdtheInternet”1hasreachedabreakingpoint.Section230oftheCommunicationsDecencyActisalawenactedin1996thatcatalyzedtheInternet’sdevelopmentbyprovidingInternet-basedserviceproviderslikesearchenginesandsocialnetworkslegalimmunityfromlawsuitsbasedonharmfulcontentcreatedbythirdparties.2Forexample,GooglegenerallycannotbeheldcivillyliableforsimplyretrievinganddisplayingharmfulInternet-basedcontentthatitdidnotcreate.3Similarly,Facebookcantypicallyavoidliabilityforharmfulcontentcontainedinauser’spostonitsplatform.4*GrahamH.Ryan,J.D.,isalitigationandappellatepartneratJonesWalkerLLP,withextensiveexperiencelitigatingcomplexcommercialissuesinallphasesoflitigation,appeals,andregulatoryproceedings,includingthoseinvolvingtechnology,artificialintelligence,Section230,andrelatedmatters.HeholdsaninternationaldesignationasanArtificialIntelligenceGovernanceProfessionalfromtheInternationalAssociationofPrivacyProfessionals,andhasbeenpublishedonlegalandconstitutionalissuesarisingfromemergingInternettechnologies.SeeJeffKosseff,TheTwenty-SixWordsThatCreatedtheInternet47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)(generally,“SectionSeeMarshall’sLocksmithServ.v.Google,LLC,925F.3d1263(D.C.Cir.SeeForcev.Facebook,Inc.,934F.3d53(2dCir.

“創(chuàng)造了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)”的法律已經(jīng)達到臨界點。1996年通過的《通信規(guī)范法》第230條是一項法律，它通過為搜索引擎和社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)等基其未創(chuàng)建的有害互聯(lián)網(wǎng)內(nèi)容而承擔民事責任。同樣，F(xiàn)acebook通常格雷厄姆·H·瑞安（GrahamH.Ryan），法學博士，是瓊斯沃克律師事務(wù)所（JonesWalkerLLP）的訴訟和上訴合伙人，在所有訴訟、上訴和監(jiān)管程序階段都有豐富的訴訟經(jīng)驗，包括涉及技術(shù)、人工智能、第230條及相關(guān)事項的案件。他是國際隱私專業(yè)人員協(xié)會（InternationalAssociationofPrivacyProfessionals）認證的人工智能治理專業(yè)人士，并在新興互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)引發(fā)的合法和憲法問題上發(fā)表了文章。1.參見杰夫·科索夫（JeffKosseff）的《那二十六個單詞創(chuàng)造了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)》（2019年）2.美國法典第47卷第230條（c）（1）（通常稱為“第230條”）。3.參見馬歇爾鎖匠服務(wù)公司訴谷歌有限責任公司案，925F.3d1263（哥倫比亞特區(qū)巡回法院2019年）。4.參見福斯訴臉書公司案，934F.3d53（第二巡回法院2019年）。 HarvardJournalofLaw&

furtheringthelaw’spurpose“topreservethevibrantandcompetitivefreemarketthatpresentlyexistsfortheInternetandotherinteractivecomputerservices,unfetteredbyFederalorStateregulation.”5ThefunctionalscopeofSection230immunityhasevolvedalongsideInternettechnology.ItinitiallycoveredpassiveintermediarieslikeAOLonlinemessageboardsata

幾十年來，美國法院廣泛適用第230條保護，進一步推動了該法律的目的，“為了保護目前存在的充滿活力和競爭的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)及其他互動計算機服務(wù)的自由市場，不受聯(lián)邦或州監(jiān)管的束縛?！?第230條AOL在線論壇這樣的被動中介，當時互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶總數(shù)為4000萬7whenthenumberofInternetuserstotaled40million,6butitnowadvancedsocialmediaalgorithmsthatfilter,promote,andpersonalizecontent7asthepopulationofInternetusershassurpassed5.35billion.8Intheinterveningperiod,courtshavestretchedSection230toitslogicalbounds—andsomewouldarguefarbeyond.9Butthelawestablishesonebrightlinecourtshavenotcrossed:Section230protectiondoesnotextendtoInternet-basedservicesthatactuallycreateordevelopcontent.10Technologyhascrossedthatline.TheInternet’sfuturedevelopmentwillbeshapedbygenerativeartificialintelligence(AI),whichperformsanunprecedentedtechnologicalroleincreatinganddevelopingcontentratherthanmerelyretrievingorexchangingit.11CourtshavelongbeenreluctanttodisruptSection230’slegalunderpinningsoftheInternet12andhavecarefullyadaptedSection230’slegalstandardstoextenditsprotectionsto

8，因為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶數(shù)量已超過53.5億9。在此期間，法院將第230條推到了其邏輯極限——有些人可能會認為遠遠超出了極限?！醯摲纱_立了一條法院沒有逾越的明確界限：第230條保護不適用于實際創(chuàng)（AI）塑造，它在一個前所未有的技術(shù)角色中創(chuàng)造和發(fā)展內(nèi)容，而不僅僅是檢索或交換內(nèi)容。22長期以來，法院一直不愿意破壞互聯(lián)網(wǎng)第230條的法律基礎(chǔ)23，并已仔細調(diào)整第230條的法律標準，以將其47U.S.C.§Zeranv.Am.Online,Inc.,129F.3d327,328(4thCir.1997)(“‘TheInternetisaninternationalnetworkofinterconnectedcomputers,’currentlyusedbyapproximately40millionpeopleworldwide.”)(citingRenov.Am.C.L.Union,521U.S.844,849(1997)).Force,934F.3dSeeAniPetrosyan,NumberofInternetandSocialMediaUsersWorldwideasofJanuary2024,STATISTA(Jan.31,2024),https:///statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/(“AsofJanuary2024,therewere5.35billioninternetusersworldwide,whichamountedto66.2percentoftheglobalpopulation.Ofthistotal,5.04billion,or62.3percentoftheworld’spopulation,weresocialmediausers.”).Doev.Snap,Inc.,No.22-20543,2023U.S.App.LEXIS33501,at*2(5thCir.Dec.18,(Elrod,J.,dissenting)(arguingthatthecurrentscopeofSection230protectionprovides“sweepingimmunityforsocialmediacompaniesthatthetext[ofSection230]cannotpossiblybear”).47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)(conferringimmunityonlywhere“information[is]providedbyanotherinformationcontentprovider.”(emphasisadded));47U.S.C.§230(f)(3)(defining“informationcontentprovider”toinclude“anypersonorentitythatisresponsible,inwholeorinpart,forthecreationordevelopmentofinformation”(emphasisadded)).GENERAL-PURPOSEARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE(2023).See,e.g.,TranscriptofOralArgumentat54,82,Gonzalezv.GoogleLLC,598U.S.617(2023)(No.21-1333)(Kavanaugh,J.)(“Congressdraftedabroadtext,andthattexthasbeenunanimouslyreadbycourtsofappealsovertheyears[I]sn’titbetterfor—tokeepitthewayitis,forus,andCongress—toputtheburdenonCongresstochangethatandtheycanconsidertheimplicationsandmakethesepredictivejudgments?”);id.at46(Kagan,J.)(“[I]sn’tthatsomethingforCongresstodo,nottheCourt?”).

5.47U.S.C.§7.Zeranv.Am.Online,Inc.,129F.3d327,328(4thCir.1997)(“‘TheInternetisaninternationalnetworkofinterconnectedcomputers,?currentlyusedbyapproximately40millionpeopleworldwide.”)(citingRenov.Am.C.L.Union,521U.S.844,849(1997)).Force,934F.3dSeeAniPetrosyan,NumberofInternetandSocialMediaUsersWorldwideasofJanuary2024,(“AsofJanuary2024,therewere5.35billioninternetusersworldwide,whichamountedto77.2percentoftheglobalpopulation.Ofthistotal,5.04billion,or72.3percentoftheworld?spopulation,weresocialmediausers.”).Doev.Snap,Inc.,No.22-20543,2023U.S.App.LEXIS33501,at*2(5thCir.Dec.18,(Elrod,J.,dissenting)(arguingthatthecurrentscopeofSection230protectionprovides“sweepingimmunityforsocialmediacompaniesthatthetext[ofSection230]cannotpossiblybear”).47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)(conferringimmunityonlywhere“information[is]providedbyanotierinformationcontentprovider.”(emphasisadded));47U.S.C.§230(f)(3)(defining“informationcontentprovider”toinclude“anypersonorentitythatisresponsible,inwholeorinpart,forthecreationordevelopmentofinformation”(emphasisadded)).GENERAL-PURPOSEARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE(2023).See,e.g.,TranscriptofOralArgumentat54,82,Gonzalezv.GoogleLLC,598U.S.717(2023)(No.21-1333)(Kavanaugh,J.)(“Congressdraftedabroadtext,andthattexthasbeenunanimouslyreadbycourtsofappealsovertheyears[I]sn?titbetterfor”tokeepitthewayitis,forus,andCongress”toputtheburdenonCongresstochangethatandtheycanconsidertheimplicationsandnottheCourtA”). GenerativeAIWillBreakthe technologies.13ButcourtswillsoonbeconfrontedwithunavoidablecallstoreshapeSection230inthecontextofwhetheritappliestoprotectthegenerativeAIsystemsthatwilldrivetheInternet’sfuture.LitigationinvolvinggenerativeAIwillforcecourtstorevisitSection

摘要 生成式AI將打破互聯(lián) 技術(shù)。24但法院很快將面臨不可避免的呼吁，在是否適用于保護將推動互聯(lián)網(wǎng)未來的生成式AI系統(tǒng)的情況下重塑第230條。inamannerthatwillvastlyimpacttheInternetintwospecificways.First,courtopinionsongenerativeAIarelikelytoexpresslydeclarethatSection230’slegalprotectionsdonotextendtoAIsystemsthatmateriallycontributetothecreationordevelopmentofcontent,therebyincreasinglegalriskandthwartinggrowthofInternet-basedgenerativeAIsystems.14Second,courtopinionsongenerativeAIarelikelytoreshapetwolegalstandardsthatgovernthescopeofSection230immunity—themeaningofan“informationcontentprovider,”andthecontoursofwhenatechnologyserviceisa“publisherorspeaker”ofinformation.ThiswilldisruptlongstandinglegalprecedentandintroducelegalriskfornotonlygenerativeAIsystems,butvirtuallyallinteractivecomputerservices.15JudicialdeterminationsonSection230andgenerativeAIwillforevertransformthelegallandscapegoverningInternettechnologiesanddictatewhetherthelegalprotectionsthatcatalyzedtheInternet’spre-AIdevelopmentwilldothesameforemergingtechnologieslikegenerativeAI.ThisarticleprovidesaprimeronSection230andgenerativeAI,andexaminestwoevolvingSection230legalstandardsthatwillsoonbeappliedtogenerativeAIinmannerthatwillshapethefutureoftheInternet.Section230Section230states:“Noprovideroruserofaninteractivecomputerbyanotherinformationcontentprovider.”16Itprovidesthat“noliabilitymaybeimposedunderanyStateorlocallaw”ifalegalclaimseekstoholdaproviderliableforinformationcreatedbyathird-party.17Forexample,Section230hasprovidedimmunitytoFacebookinaclaimthatitunlawfullyprovidedHamas,aU.S.-designatedforeignterroristorganization,withacommunicationsplatformthatenabledcertainterroristattackscommittedForcev.Facebook,Inc.,934F.3d53,67–68(2dCir.2019)(extendingSection230immunitytoclaimsbasedonalgorithmsthatpersonalizedFacebookcontent).SeeinfraPartSee47U.S.C.§47U.S.C.§230(e)(delineatingexceptionstoSection230immunityforfederalcriminalprosecutionorclaimsundercertainintellectualpropertylaw,electroniccommunicationsprivacylaw,orsextraffickinglaw).

第230院意見可能會明確聲明，第230條的法律保護不適用于對內(nèi)容創(chuàng)作或院意見可能會重塑兩個規(guī)范第230條豁免范圍的法律標準——即司法對第230條和生成式AI的裁決將永遠改變規(guī)范互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)的法律格局，并決定那些催化了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在AI之前發(fā)展的法律保護措施是否會對生成式AI等新興技術(shù)產(chǎn)生同樣的影響。本文提供了第230條和生成式AI的入門指南，并考察了即將應(yīng)用于生成式AI的兩種演變的第230條法律標準，這將塑造互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的未來。[第230條規(guī)定：“任何交互式計算機服務(wù)的提供者或使用者不應(yīng)被視為由另一信息內(nèi)容提供者提供的信息的出版者或發(fā)言者?！?7它規(guī)定，如果一項法律訴訟尋求使提供者對由第三方創(chuàng)建的信息承擔責任，則“在任何州或地方法律下均不得施加責任”。28例如，第230條為Facebook提供豁免，在一項訴訟中，該訴訟指控Facebook非法向Force訴Facebook，Inc.，934F.3d53，第67?68頁（第二巡回法院2019年（將第230條豁免權(quán)擴展到基于個性化Facebook內(nèi)容的索賠）。14.參見下文第IV15.參見上述內(nèi)容。16.47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)。17.47U.S.C.§230(e)（界定第230條豁 HarvardJournalofLaw&

HamasinIsrael.18Otherexamplesincludeimmunityforawebsitethatallegedlyfacilitatedillegaldrugsaleswherethewebsitedidnotcreatethecontent,19andimmunityforasearchengineinaclaimbasedonitsfailuretoremoveanapplicationfromitsappstore.20WithoutSection230,Internet-basedserviceswouldbeexposedtoclaimsmerelyfordisplaying,transmitting,orblockingcontentcreatedbythirdparties.21TheInternet’s“uninhibited,robust”technologicaldevelopmentisdueinlargeparttotheprotectionsconferredbySection230.22Section230“madee-commerceitselfeconomicallyfeasible”23andexpansivelycatalyzedthetechnologicaldevelopmentoftheInternet.24Section230immunitygenerallyapplieswhenthreecriteriaare(1)theproviderisan“interactivecomputerservice,”(2)aclaimtreatstheproviderasthe“publisherorspeaker”ofharmfulinformation,and(3)theharmfulinformationiscreatedby“anotherinformationcontentprovider.”25Whatisan“interactivecomputerSection230broadlydefines“interactivecomputerservice”toinclude“anyinformationservice,system,oraccesssoftwareproviderthatprovidesorenablescomputeraccessbymultipleuserstoacomputerserver.”26

以色列的哈馬斯。29其他例子包括對一個網(wǎng)站的保護，該網(wǎng)站據(jù)稱促進了非法毒品銷售，而該網(wǎng)站并未創(chuàng)建內(nèi)容，2□以及對一個搜索引擎訴訟中獲得了豁免。31如果沒有第230條，基于顯示、傳輸或阻止第三方創(chuàng)建的內(nèi)容的索賠，基于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的服務(wù)將面臨訴訟。32互聯(lián)網(wǎng)“不受限制、強大”的技術(shù)發(fā)展在很大程度上得益于第230條所賦予的保護。33第230條“使電子商務(wù)本身在經(jīng)濟上可行”，34并廣第230條豁免通常在滿足三個標準時適用：（1）提供商是“交互”，（2）人”，（3）有害信息是由“另一個信息內(nèi)容提供商”創(chuàng)建的。36230用戶能夠訪問計算機服務(wù)?的信息服務(wù)、系統(tǒng)或訪問軟件提供商”。37法院Force,934F.3datDyroffv.UltimateSoftwareGrp.,Inc.,934F.3d1093(9thCir.Ginsbergv.GoogleInc.,586F.Supp.3d998(N.D.Cal.See,e.g.,GoogleLLCv.EquustekSols.Inc.,No.17-04207,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS182194,*6–7(N.D.Cal.Nov.2,2017)(“TheNinthCircuithasheldthat,regardlessoftheunderlyingcauseofaction,aclaimtreatsanintermediaryasapublisherwhenitrequirestheintermediarytoremovethird-partycontent.”).SeeJonesv.DirtyWorldEntm’tRecordingsLLC,755F.3d398,415(6thCir.2014)(citingU.S.C.§230(a)(1)–(5))(“Congressenvisionedanuninhibited,robust,andwide-openPapatarosv.A,Inc.,No.17-9836,2019U.S.Dist.LEXIS144253,at*46n.18(D.N.J.Aug.26,2019)(“Ithasbeensaidthatthe‘twenty-sixwords’ofSection230oftheCDA,enactedin1996,madee-commerceitselfeconomicallyfeasiblebypermittingplatformssuchasAtomatchsellerswithbuyerswithouttakingontheseller’sliabilities.Itwouldperhapsbemoresoberandaccuratetosaythatthetwenty-sixwordsofSection230promotedorfacilitatedimportantaspectsoftheinternetaswenowknowit.”(citationomitted)).SeeDoev.MySpaceInc.,528F.3d413,418(5thCir.2008)(“Courtshaveconstruedtheimmunityprovisionsin§230broadlyinallcasesarisingfromthepublicationofuser-generatedcontent.”);seealsoDiezv.Google,Inc.,831F.App’x723,725(5thCir.2020)(“AmajorityoffederalInc.,456F.3d1316,1321(11thCir.2006))).47U.S.C.§230(c)(1);Rigsbyv.GoDaddyInc.,59F.4th998,1003(9thCir.47U.S.C.§230(f)(2);seealso47U.S.C.§230(f)(4)(“Theterm‘a(chǎn)ccesssoftwareprovider’meansaproviderofsoftware(includingclientorserversoftware),orenablingtoolsthatdoanyoneormoreofthefollowing:(A)filter,screen,allow,ordisallowcontent;(B)pick,choose,analyze,ordigestcontent;or(C)transmit,receive,display,forward,cache,search,subset,organize,reorganize,ortranslatecontent.”).

Force,934F.3datDyroffv.UltimateSoftwareGrp.,Inc.,934F.3d1093(9thCir.Ginsbergv.GoogleInc.,587F.Supp.3d998(N.D.Cal.See,e.g.,GoogleLLCv.EquustekSols.Inc.,No.17-04207,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS182194,*7–7(N.D.Cal.Nov.2,2017)(“TheNinthCircuithasheldthat,regardlessoftheunderlyingcauseofaction,aclaimtreatsanintermediaryasapublisherwhenitrequirestheintermediarytoremovethird-partycontent.”).U.S.C.§230(a)(1)–(5))(“Congressenvisionedanuninhibited,robust,andwide-openinternet.”Papatarosv.A,Inc.,No.17-9837,2019U.S.Dist.LEXIS144253,at*47n.18(D.N.J.Aug.27,2019)(“Ithasbeensaidthatthe‘twenty-sixwords?ofSection230oftheCDA,enactedin1997,madee-commerceitselfeconomicallyfeasiblebypermittingplatformssuchasAtomatchsellerswithbuyerswithouttakingontheseller?sliabilities.Itwouldperhapsbemoresoberandaccuratetosaythatthetwenty-sixwordsofSection230promotedorfacilitatedimportantaspectsoftheinternetaswenowknowit.”(citationomitted)).SeeDoev.MySpaceInc.,528F.3d413,418(5thCir.2008)(“Courtshaveconstruedtheimmunityprovisionsin§230broadlyinallcasesarisingfromthepublicationofuser-generatedInc.,457F.3d1317,1321(11thCir.2007))).47U.S.C.§230(c)(1);Rigsbyv.GoDaddyInc.,59F.4th998,1003(9thCir.27.47U.S.C.§230(f)(2);seealso47U.S.C.§230(f)(4)(“Theterm‘a(chǎn)ccesssoftwareprovider?meansaproviderofsoftware(includingclientorserversoftware),orenablingtoolsthatdoanyoneormoreofthefollowing:(A)filter,screen,allow,ordisallowcontent;(B)pick,choose,analyze,ordigestcontent;or(C)transmit,receive,display,forward,cache,search,subset,organize,reorganize,ortranslatecontent.”). GenerativeAIWillBreakthe haveappliedthisdefinition“expansively”toincludesocialmediaplatforms,searchengines,onlinecommunities,andawiderangeofotherintermediaryplatformsandservicesthatallowfortheexchangeandtransmissionofinformationbetweenusers.27ManygenerativeAIsystems,particularlythosethatemployInternet-baseddatasets,likelyfallwithinSection230’sdefinitionofaninteractivecomputerservice.28Whatisa“publisheroraclaimthatattemptstoholditliableasthe“publisherorspeaker”ofinformationcreatedordevelopedbyanotherperson.29Section230doesnotdefine“publisherorspeaker,”butcourtopinionsgenerallyholdthatalegalclaimimpermissiblyattemptstoholdaproviderliableasapublisherorspeakeriftheclaimattemptstofaulttheproviderforthethird-partyinformation,30wouldrequiretheprovidertoeditorremovethird-partycontent,31orisbasedontheprovider’sfailuretoimplementmeasurestopreventtransmissionofthird-partycontent.32Asonecourtexplained,aclaimattemptstoholdadefendantliableasa“publisherorspeaker”iftheclaimattemptstoimposeadutyondefendantto“policeitsnetworkforcontenttransmittedbyitsusers.”33Asanothercourtexplained,“anyactivitythat

摘要 生成式AI將打破互聯(lián) 已將此定義“廣泛地”應(yīng)用于包括社交媒體平臺、搜索引擎、在線社區(qū)以及廣泛的其他中介平臺和服務(wù)，這些平臺和服務(wù)允許用戶之間進行信息和傳輸。38許多生成式AI的數(shù)據(jù)集的系統(tǒng)，很可能屬于第230條關(guān)于互動計算機服務(wù)的定義。第230條使交互式計算機服務(wù)的提供者免于因作為“出版者或發(fā)言人”而對其創(chuàng)建或開發(fā)的信息承擔責任而提出的索賠。第230條沒有定義“出版者或發(fā)言人”，但法院意見通常認為，如果索賠試圖其用戶傳輸?shù)膬?nèi)容進行“警察”網(wǎng)絡(luò)，那么就試圖將被告作為輸內(nèi)容的活動都可以”E.g.,Kimzeyv.Yelp!Inc.,836F.3d1263,1268(9thCir.2016)(citingCarafanov.M,Inc.,339F.3d1119,1123(9thCir.2003))(“Yelpisplainlyaproviderofan‘interactivecomputerservice,’atermthatweinterpret‘expansive[ly]’undertheCDA.”).“‘[T]hemostcommoninteractivecomputerservicesarewebsites.’”Id.(quotingFairHous.Councilv.R,LLC,521F.3d1157,1162n.6(9thCir.2008)).47U.S.C.§SeeDoev.Snap,Inc.,No.22-00590,2022U.S.Dist.LEXIS119560,at*43(S.D.Tex.July2022)(seekingtoholddefendantliable“asthepublisherorspeaker”ofinformation“providedbyathirdparty”(cleanedup)).SeeBridev.SnapInc.,No.21-06680,2023U.S.Dist.LEXIS5481,at*19(C.D.Cal.Jan.2023)(“[T]hecourtfindsthatPlaintiffs’theorywouldrequiretheeditingofthird-partycontent,thustreatingDefendantsasapublisherofcontent.”);GoogleLLCv.EquustekSols.Inc.,No.17-04207,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS182194,at*6–7(N.D.Cal.Nov.2,2017)(“TheNinthCircuithasheldthat,regardlessoftheunderlyingcauseofaction,aclaimtreatsanintermediaryasapublisherwhenitrequirestheintermediarytoremovethird-partycontent.”).SeeDoev.MySpaceInc.,528F.3d413,420(5thCir.2008)(“TheirclaimsarebarredbytheCDA,notwithstandingtheirassertionthattheyonlyseektoholdMySpaceliableforitsfailuretoimplementmeasuresthatwouldhaveprevented[thecommunication].TheirallegationsaremerelyanotherwayofclaimingthatMySpacewasliableforpublishingthecommunicationsandtheyspeaktoMySpace’sroleasapublisherofonlinethird-party-generatedcontent.”).Greenv.Am.Online,Inc.,318F.3d465,470–71(3dCir.2003)(findingthatSection230barredclaimwheretheplaintiffallegedthatthedefendanthadnegligentlyfailed“toproperlypoliceitsnetworkforcontenttransmittedbyitsusers”becausetheplaintiff“attempt[ed]tohold[thedefendant]

E.g.,Kimzeyv.Yelp!Inc.,837F.3d1273,1278(9thCir.2017)(citingCarafanov.M,Inc.,339F.3d1119,1123(9thCir.2003))(“Yelpisplainlyaproviderofancommoninteractivecomputerservicesarewebsites.?”Id.(quotingFairHous.Councilv.R,LLC,521F.3d1157,1172n.7(9thCir.2008)).47U.S.C.§SeeDoev.Snap,Inc.,No.22-00590,2022U.S.Dist.LEXIS119570,at*43(S.D.Tex.July2022)(seekingtoholddefendantliable“asthepublisherorspeaker”ofinformation“providedbyathirdparty”(cleanedup)).SeeBridev.SnapInc.,No.21-07780,2023U.S.Dist.LEXIS5481,at*19(C.D.Cal.Jan.2023)(“[T]hecourtfindsthatPlaintiffs?theorywouldrequiretheeditingofthird-partycontent,thustreatingDefendantsasapublisherofcontent.”);GoogleLLCv.EquustekSols.Inc.,No.17-04207,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS182194,at*7–7(N.D.Cal.Nov.2,2017)(“TheNinthCircuithasheldthat,regardlessoftheunderlyingcauseofaction,aclaimtreatsanintermediaryasapublisherwhenitrequirestheintermediarytoremovethird-partycontent.”).SeeDoev.MySpaceInc.,528F.3d413,420(5thCir.2008)(“TheirclaimsarebarredbytheCDA,notwithstandingtheirassertionthattheyonlyseektoholdMySpaceliableforitsfailuretoimplementmeasuresthatwouldhaveprevented[thecommunication].TheirallegationsaremerelyanotherwayofclaimingthatMySpacewasliableforpublishingthecommunicationsandtheyspeaktoMySpace?sroleasapublisherofonlinethird-party-generatedcontent.”).Greenv.Am.Online,Inc.,318F.3d475,470–71(3dCir.2003)(findingthatSection230barredclaimwheretheplaintiffallegedthatthedefendanthadnegligentlyfailed“toproperlypoliceitsnetworkforcontenttransmittedbyitsusers”becausetheplaintiff“attempt[ed]tohold[thedefendant] HarvardJournalofLaw&

beboileddowntodecidingwhethertoexcludematerialthatthirdpartiesseektopostonlineisperforceimmuneundersection230.”34C.Whatis“anotherinformationcontentSection230immunityapplieswhenharmfulinformationwascreatedordevelopedbyathird-party“informationcontentprovider,”definedas“anypersonorentitythatisresponsible,inwholeorinpart,forthecreationordevelopmentofinformationprovidedthroughtheInternetoranyotherinteractivecomputerservice.”35Section230immunitythusdoesnotapplyifaproviderofaninteractivecomputerserviceitselfisthe“informationcontentprovider,”i.e.,iftheprovidermateriallycontributestothecreationordevelopmentoftheharmfulcontent.36GenerativeThedefinitionsforAIanditsconstituenttermsarevaryingandevolving,andthereis“nogloballyagreeddefinitionofartificialintelligence.”37Generally,theterm“artificialintelligence”referstocomputer-basedsystemsthatusemachineandhumaninputstoperceiverealandvirtualenvironments,abstractperceptionsintomodelsthroughautomatedanalysis,andusemodelinferencetoformulateoptions.38An“AImodel”referstoacomponentof

230C當有害信息是由第三方“信息內(nèi)容提供者”條款的豁免權(quán)適用，該提供者被定義為“任何對通過互聯(lián)網(wǎng)或任何其他交互式計算機服務(wù)提供的信息的創(chuàng)建或開發(fā)負有全部或部分責任的個人或?qū)嶓w。”46因此，如果交互式計算機服務(wù)的提供者本身是“信息內(nèi)容提供者”，即如果提供者對有害內(nèi)容的創(chuàng)建或開發(fā)有實質(zhì)性貢獻，則230條款的豁免權(quán)不適用。47G生成式人工智能及其構(gòu)成術(shù)語的定義正在變化和演變，并且“沒有全球范圍內(nèi)達成的人工智能定義?！?8通常，術(shù)語“人工智能”指的是，通過自動化分析將感知抽象成模型，并使用模型推理來制定選項。49“AI模型”指的是一個組件，它是liablefordecisionsrelatingtothemonitoring,screening,anddeletionofcontentfromitsnetwork—actionsquintessentiallyrelatedtoapublisher’srole.”).FairHous.Councilv.R,LLC,521F.3d1157,1170–71(9thCir.2008);seealsoDoev.Twitter,Inc.,Nos.22-15103,22-15104,2023U.S.App.LEXIS10808,at*4(9thCir.May3,47U.S.C.§230(c)(1);seealso47U.S.C.§47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)(conferringimmunityonlywhere“information[is]providedbyanotherinformationcontentprovider.”)(emphasisadded);seealsoRoommates,521F.3dat1166(“[S]ection230providesimmunityonlyiftheinteractivecomputerservicedoesnot‘creat[e]ordevelop[]’theinformation“‘inwholeorinpart.’”(citing47U.S.C.§230(f)(3)));Kimzeyv.Yelp!Inc.,836F.3d1263,1269(9thCir.2016)(“[A]websitemayloseimmunityundertheCDAbymakingamaterialcontributiontothecreationordevelopmentofcontent.”).SeeMADIEGA,supranote11,at1(“[T]hereisnogloballyagreeddefinitionofartificialSee15U.S.C.§9401(3);NationalArtificialIntelligenceInitiativeActof2020,Pub.L.No.116-283,134Stat.3388;seealsoProposalforaRegulationoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilLayingDownHarmonisedRulesOnArtificialIntelligence(ArtificialIntelligenceAct)andAmendingCertainUnionLegislativeActs,EUR.PARL.DOC.2021/0106(COD),art.3(“[A]systemthatisdesignedtooperatewithelementsofautonomyandthat,basedonmachineand/orhuman-provideddataandinputs,infershowtoachieveagivensetofobjectivesusingmachinelearningand/orlogic-andknowledgebasedapproaches,andproducessystem-generatedoutputssuchascontent(generativeAIsystems),predictions,recommendationsordecisions,influencingtheenvironmentswithwhichthesystemthat,autonomouslyorpartlyautonomously,processesdatarelatedtohumanactivitiesthrough

liablefordecisionsrelatingtothemonitoring,screening,anddeletionofcontentfromitsnetwork”actionsquintessentiallyrelatedtoapublisher?srole.”).FairHous.Councilv.R,LLC,521F.3d1157,1170–71(9thCir.2008);seealsoDoev.Twitter,Inc.,Nos.22-15103,22-15104,2023U.S.App.LEXIS10808,at*4(9thCir.May3,47U.S.C.§230(c)(1);seealso47U.S.C.§37.47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)(conferringimmunityonlywhere“information[is]providedbyanotierinformationcontentprovider.”)(emphasisadded);seealsoRoommates,521F.3dat1177(“[S]ection230providesimmunityonlyiftheinteractivecomputerservicedoesnot‘creat[e]ordevelop[]?theinformation“‘inwholeorinpart.?”(citing47U.S.C.§230(f)(3)));Kimzeyv.Yelp!Inc.,837F.3d1273,1279(9thCir.2017)(“[A]websitemayloseimmunityundertheCDAbymakingamaterialcontributiontothecreationordevelopmentofcontent.”).SeeMADIEGA,supranote11,at1(“[T]hereisnogloballyagreeddefinitionofartificialSee15U.S.C.§9401(3);NationalArtificialIntelligenceInitiativeActof2020,Pub.L.No.117-283,134Stat.3388;seealsoProposalforaRegulationoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilLayingDownHarmonisedRulesOnArtificialIntelligence(ArtificialIntelligenceAct)andAmendingCertainUnionLegislativeActs,EUR.PARL.DOC.202100107(COD),art.3(“[A]systemthatisdesignedtooperatewithelementsofautonomyandthat,basedonmachineand0orhuman-provideddataandinputs,infershowtoachieveagivensetofobjectivesusingmachinelearningand0orlogic-andknowledgebasedapproaches,andproducessystem-generatedoutputssuchascontent(generativeAIsystems),predictions,recommendationsordecisions,influencingtheenvironmentswithwhichthesystemthat,autonomouslyorpartlyautonomously,processesdatarelatedtohumanactivitiesthrough GenerativeAIWillBreakthe informationsystemthatproducesoutputsfromasetofinputsthroughAItechnologyandcomputationalormachine-learningtechniques.39

摘要 生成式AI將打破互聯(lián)網(wǎng)格 成輸出。learning”isanapplicationofAIthatprovidesasystemtheabilityautomaticallyimprovefromdataorexperience,withoutexplicitprogramming.40An“AIsystem”generallyrefersasystem,application,ortoolthatoperatesusingAI.41“GenerativeAI”generallyreferstoasubsetofAImodelsthatgeneratecontentderivedthroughmachinelearning,inputdata,andpre-existingdata.42ManygenerativeAIsystemsemploylargelanguagemodels(“LLMs”)thataretrainedonalargedatasetoftextfromtheInternettopredictthenextplausiblewordorphraseinalinguisticconstruct.43SomeLLMsarefine-tunedusingadditionaldataandatechniquecalledreinforcementlearningfromhumanfeedback(“RLHF”),whichuseshumanaugmentationtoguidemodeloutputs.44ModeltuningandtrainingcancontinueafterAIsystemdeploymenttoanenduserthroughfilteringtoolsandcontentmoderationclassifiers.45FoundationmodelsemployedbygenerativeAIsystemsusuallygenerateoriginaloutputs,ascontrastedfromsystemslikesearchenginesthatmayretrieveanddisplayextractedthird-partycontentfromasourcewebsite.WhiletheparticularsofthedefinitionsandintricaciesofgenerativeAIvary,onematerialaspectofgenerativeAIforSection230purposesisthatthecontent