2024哈佛大学生成式 AI 将打破互联网

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

AI230第230条概述.AB断点POTWOSECTION230AI230“S.Wh◻th◻rG◻n◻rati◻◻Aƒoyst◻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.

“创造了互联网”的法律已经达到临界点。1996年通过的《通信规范法》第230条是一项法律，它通过为搜索引擎和社交网络等基其未创建的有害互联网内容而承担民事责任。同样，Facebook通常格雷厄姆·H·瑞安（GrahamH.Ryan），法学博士，是琼斯沃克律师事务所（JonesWalkerLLP）的诉讼和上诉合伙人，在所有诉讼、上诉和监管程序阶段都有丰富的诉讼经验，包括涉及技术、人工智能、第230条及相关事项的案件。他是国际隐私专业人员协会（InternationalAssociationofPrivacyProfessionals）认证的人工智能治理专业人士，并在新兴互联网技术引发的合法和宪法问题上发表了文章。1.参见杰夫·科索夫（JeffKosseff）的《那二十六个单词创造了互联网》（2019年）2.美国法典第47卷第230条（c）（1）（通常称为“第230条”）。3.参见马歇尔锁匠服务公司诉谷歌有限责任公司案，925F.3d1263（哥伦比亚特区巡回法院2019年）。4.参见福斯诉脸书公司案，934F.3d53（第二巡回法院2019年）。 HarvardJournalofLaw&

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

几十年来，美国法院广泛适用第230条保护，进一步推动了该法律的目的，“为了保护目前存在的充满活力和竞争的互联网及其他互动计算机服务的自由市场，不受联邦或州监管的束缚。”6第230条AOL在线论坛这样的被动中介，当时互联网用户总数为4000万7whenthenumberofInternetuserstotaled40million,6butitnowadvancedsocialmediaalgorithmsthatfilter,promote,andpersonalizecontent7asthepopulationofInternetusershassurpassed5.35billion.8Intheinterveningperiod,courtshavestretchedSection230toitslogicalbounds—andsomewouldarguefarbeyond.9Butthelawestablishesonebrightlinecourtshavenotcrossed:Section230protectiondoesnotextendtoInternet-basedservicesthatactuallycreateordevelopcontent.10Technologyhascrossedthatline.TheInternet’sfuturedevelopmentwillbeshapedbygenerativeartificialintelligence(AI),whichperformsanunprecedentedtechnologicalroleincreatinganddevelopingcontentratherthanmerelyretrievingorexchangingit.11CourtshavelongbeenreluctanttodisruptSection230’slegalunderpinningsoftheInternet12andhavecarefullyadaptedSection230’slegalstandardstoextenditsprotectionsto

8，因为互联网用户数量已超过53.5亿9。在此期间，法院将第230条推到了其逻辑极限——有些人可能会认为远远超出了极限。□但该法律确立了一条法院没有逾越的明确界限：第230条保护不适用于实际创（AI）塑造，它在一个前所未有的技术角色中创造和发展内容，而不仅仅是检索或交换内容。22长期以来，法院一直不愿意破坏互联网第230条的法律基础23，并已仔细调整第230条的法律标准，以将其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将打破互联 技术。24但法院很快将面临不可避免的呼吁，在是否适用于保护将推动互联网未来的生成式AI系统的情况下重塑第230条。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院意见可能会明确声明，第230条的法律保护不适用于对内容创作或院意见可能会重塑两个规范第230条豁免范围的法律标准——即司法对第230条和生成式AI的裁决将永远改变规范互联网技术的法律格局，并决定那些催化了互联网在AI之前发展的法律保护措施是否会对生成式AI等新兴技术产生同样的影响。本文提供了第230条和生成式AI的入门指南，并考察了即将应用于生成式AI的两种演变的第230条法律标准，这将塑造互联网的未来。[第230条规定：“任何交互式计算机服务的提供者或使用者不应被视为由另一信息内容提供者提供的信息的出版者或发言者。”27它规定，如果一项法律诉讼寻求使提供者对由第三方创建的信息承担责任，则“在任何州或地方法律下均不得施加责任”。28例如，第230条为Facebook提供豁免，在一项诉讼中，该诉讼指控Facebook非法向Force诉Facebook，Inc.，934F.3d53，第67‑68页（第二巡回法院2019年（将第230条豁免权扩展到基于个性化Facebook内容的索赔）。14.参见下文第IV15.参见上述内容。16.47U.S.C.§230(c)(1)。17.47U.S.C.§230(e)（界定第230条豁 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

以色列的哈马斯。29其他例子包括对一个网站的保护，该网站据称促进了非法毒品销售，而该网站并未创建内容，2□以及对一个搜索引擎诉讼中获得了豁免。31如果没有第230条，基于显示、传输或阻止第三方创建的内容的索赔，基于互联网的服务将面临诉讼。32互联网“不受限制、强大”的技术发展在很大程度上得益于第230条所赋予的保护。33第230条“使电子商务本身在经济上可行”，34并广第230条豁免通常在满足三个标准时适用：（1）提供商是“交互”，（2）人”，（3）有害信息是由“另一个信息内容提供商”创建的。36230用户能够访问计算机服务器的信息服务、系统或访问软件提供商”。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‘accesssoftwareprovider’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‘accesssoftwareprovider◻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将打破互联 已将此定义“广泛地”应用于包括社交媒体平台、搜索引擎、在线社区以及广泛的其他中介平台和服务，这些平台和服务允许用户之间进行信息和传输。38许多生成式AI的数据集的系统，很可能属于第230条关于互动计算机服务的定义。第230条使交互式计算机服务的提供者免于因作为“出版者或发言人”而对其创建或开发的信息承担责任而提出的索赔。第230条没有定义“出版者或发言人”，但法院意见通常认为，如果索赔试图其用户传输的内容进行“警察”网络，那么就试图将被告作为输内容的活动都可以”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当有害信息是由第三方“信息内容提供者”条款的豁免权适用，该提供者被定义为“任何对通过互联网或任何其他交互式计算机服务提供的信息的创建或开发负有全部或部分责任的个人或实体。”46因此，如果交互式计算机服务的提供者本身是“信息内容提供者”，即如果提供者对有害内容的创建或开发有实质性贡献，则230条款的豁免权不适用。47G生成式人工智能及其构成术语的定义正在变化和演变，并且“没有全球范围内达成的人工智能定义。”48通常，术语“人工智能”指的是，通过自动化分析将感知抽象成模型，并使用模型推理来制定选项。49“AI模型”指的是一个组件，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将打破互联网格 成输出。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