1. The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial.
2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts.
Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology.
If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.
2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts.
Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology.
If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.