> defamation law

Not sure if you're serious... you think OpenAI should be held responsible for everything their LLM ever said? You can't make a token generator unless the tokens generated always happen to represent factual sentences?

Given that they publish everything their AI says? That that's in fact the business model? (in other words, they publish everything their AI says for money) Quite frankly, yes.

If I told people you are a murderer, for money, I'd expect to be sued and I'd expect to be convicted.

Nope - they do not charge you for truth

If you had a disclaimer (like OpenAI) does, probably different story

Disclaimers do not shield you from the majority of tort law. There's a reason South Park makes fun of such disclaimers.

But you aren't an LLM (that we know of I suppose)

I am a company though. Well, that's how I work. So why should it be different for me vs OpenAI or anyone else?

Most of these things are extremely valuable for humanity and therefore I think it's a very good thing that we have had a light touch approach to it so far in the west.

e.g. ignoring that I find that openai, Google, and anthropic in particular do take harassment and defamation extremely seriously (it takes serious effort to get chatgpt to write a bob saget joke let alone something seriously illegal), if they were bound by "normal" law it would be a sepulchral dalliance with safety-ism that would probably kill the industry OR just enthrone (probably) Google and Microsoft as the winners forever.

> trademark law

Presumably an AI should know about the trademarks, they are part of the world too. There is no point shielding LLMs from trademarks in the wild. A text editor can also infringe trademarks, depending how you use it. AI is taking its direction from prompts, humans are driving it.