Source: Cato Institute

The Cato Institute explores the complex and increasingly relevant question of how Artificial Intelligence should be treated under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The article uses the medical analogy of a "horse or a zebra" to ask whether AI is simply a new version of an existing technology (a "horse"), for which established legal precedents can apply, or something entirely new and different (a "zebra") that requires a novel legal framework. The author argues that attempts to regulate the output of AI models could raise significant First Amendment concerns, as such regulations could be seen as impermissible restrictions on speech.

The analysis delves into the argument that both the code underlying AI systems and the content they generate can be considered forms of speech. Just as the law protects the speech of corporations and the expressive choices made by parade organizers, it could also be interpreted to protect the expressive output of an AI. The blog post cautions against creating an "AI exception" to the First Amendment, suggesting that regulations should be content-neutral and narrowly tailored. The author advocates for treating AI like other communication technologies, such as the printing press or the internet, where the focus is on regulating unlawful uses of the technology rather than restricting the technology itself. This approach, it is argued, would best protect free expression while still allowing for the regulation of harmful conduct facilitated by AI.