> A growing body of legal scholarship argues that large language model (LLM) outputs are not “speech” under the First Amendment and therefore may be regulated without the scrutiny ordinarily applied to restrictions on expression

Isn’t ‘speech’ what happens when one party chooses to share their words with another? If I use chat gpt to generate a sentence, then deliver the sentence to someone else to be read, have I not ‘spoken’ to them? Just because I didn’t write it doesn’t mean it’s not my speech.

> The no-speech position argues that because no person stands behind a model’s words at the moment of generation, those words are not First Amendment-covered “speech.”

No person, except the user who used the tool to generate the content, surely? What the user does with the content they create is up to them - but the tool communicating the result of the work to the user is certainly not ‘speech’ - unless it’s the user ‘speaking’ to themself. The user is the author of the output, effectively. It only becomes ‘speech’ once they choose to make it available to others.

Here we go with the "speech" again. Anything that regulates big tech is met with cries about speech. Very convenient.

Well obviously the works produced by a typewriter aren't speech because the works are produced not by a person but a mechanical contraption.

And let's not start with a blog post or website comment. Those aren't speech because they aren't even written by human hands they are instead just using a very fancy elctro-mechanical mechanism for transferring a series of electric waves from one individual to another across the palent.