I am pleased to be part of the Dec 9 @coling2020 panel "Should GPT3 Have the Right to Free Speech?" with Robert Dale, @emilymbender, and @pascalefung. I expect it to give me lots to think about. The panelists will make only short remarks before open discussion. Current thoughts:
— Christopher Potts (@ChrisGPotts) December 7, 2020
I have some discomfort with this framing. It strikes me as unnecessarily frivolous about some serious questions. Here is an imagined dialogue.
Should GPT-3 have the right to free speech?
No. Software does not have rights nor should it. Living things are the only agents in moral-ethical calculations. Free speech as it currently is construed should also be recognized as a civic myth of the United States, one not universally recognized. Furthermore it should be recognized that all rights, including the right to self-expression, can impinge upon the rights and dignity of others.
What if a court recognized a free-speech right for GPT-3?
Then that court would be illegitimate. However, it is very easy to imagine this happening in the States given that the US “civic myth” is commonly used to provide extraordinary legal protections to corporate entities.
What if that allowed it to spread disinformation?
Then the operator would be morally responsible for all consequences of that dissemination.