Can you outline how that applies? OpenAI did not provide information of another information content provider, so I fail to see how it's relevant.

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

>In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by their users. (Emphasis mine)

So either the content is user generated and their training of the model should be copyright infringement, or it's not and Section 230 does not apply and this is speech for which Open AI is responsible.

It wasn’t some other user posting this. Their own software was generating the responses. That’s not 230.

Section 230? I didn't know the outputs of ChatGPT were content generated by random users on the net. Does this mean AI truly stands for 'Actual Indians'?

Preposterous.

If Section 230 protects this activity, then "Gen AI" output must be copyright violating plagiarism.

If it's not plagiarism, then OpenAI is on the hook.

I like this post because the implication is that there’s a law called Section 230 that means everything is legal online. Like “that would be totally illegal but it happened on the information superhighway, section 230 baybee!!”