6163 research outputs found
Sort by
Doorbell Monitors, Pest Alarms, Neighborhood Chat Groups, and a Second Fundamental Contradiction
No full text
The “History and Tradition” of the Sanctification of Structural Violence: A Review of the Cyclical Corrosion of Constitutional Protections
No full textJulie Nordstrom
No full textJulie Anne Nordstrom \u2790 is a retired attorney, having practiced law in Washington state. She has spent the past 20 years serving on governance boards and has recently completed a graduate program at Stanford Universityʼs Distinguished Careers Institute.
Nordstorm is personally committed to the not-for-profit sector focusing on improving education, health equity and cancer care. She is currently Chair of the Patient Quality and Safety committee of the Fred Hutch Cancer Center, an NCI designated comprehensive cancer center providing research, education and clinical care. Nordstrom is also Chair of the Head Start Board for Save The Children, US, whose focus is on providing early child development and learning to children in rural communities of need in the southern United States.
Additionally, she serves as a member of the Advisory Board of the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation supporting the mission to deliver timely, relevant and scientifically valid evidence to improve health policy and practice worldwide. She recently completed multiple terns on the University of Washington Medicine Board, previously as Chair of the system board and Chair of the University of Washington Medical Center Board, advising management on strategic initiatives, operations, and financial performance.https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/luminaries/1006/thumbnail.jp
Session 4: Generative AI and Artists
Get PDFThis session primarily focuses on the concerns of balance: how to allow technology to have its say while also promoting creativity and originality. There is no doubt that the approved interdependence of technology and artistic creation can develop great works and will ultimately shed new light on the conversation of artificial intelligence, but doing so will require time and overcoming challenges
Section 230\u27s Immunity for Generative Artificial Intelligence
Get PDFCongress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 in response to two civil cases from New York that split on the issue of immunity for online platforms from civil liability for content posted on their websites by third parties. Congress was concerned that, without immunity, online platforms would not survive, thereby hampering the internet’s development. Congress was right; commentators have hailed Section 230 as the backbone of the internet. But as time has passed, dissidents have argued that Section 230 provides broad immunity outside the bounds of what its drafters anticipated. With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, Section 230 is back in the news. Congress, President Joe Biden, law firms, and law professors have begun discussing in executive orders, hearings, and law review articles whether Section 230 immunity applies to generative artificial intelligence. All are concerned about the impact that artificial intelligence will have on our society. The issue is still novel, so circuit courts have not had the opportunity to decide whether Section 230 immunity applies to generative artificial intelligence.
This Article argues that Section 230 immunizes generative artificial intelligence but also that it should not. That is because broad immunity for generative artificial intelligence will leave those harmed by it without recourse. Instead of granting broad immunity, Congress should base immunity on the generative artificial intelligence company’s effort to prevent the kinds of harm that AI produces. This Article proposes that Congress should borrow from other areas of the law, where Congress has conditioned immunity on proactively preventing harms that the potential tortfeasor is aware of, to fashion immunity for generative artificial intelligence only under specific circumstances
