The bill is political theater and this article is playing into it.
A downloaded model that can be run on US servers is covered by the first amendment as free speech. This is not the same circumstance as the law that required TikTok divest of its platform, which was over spying concerns[0]. You can’t spy on Americans when data is kept on US servers.
There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.
> A downloaded model that can be run on US servers is covered by the first amendment as free speech.
Even Google AI said that an LLM is not itself covered under free speech; only the content it produces, which itself is ironic since AI companies stole world copyrighted data to feed into their LLM software machines.
Other than intellectual property concerns and some obtuse arguments about the model inciting others to break the law (which isn’t specific to China anyway), I’d be really curious what good arguments can be made about how it isn’t protected by the first amendment and how those arguments could target Chinese models specifically
From my understanding, downloading and running software could be considered a form of conduct or could be considered a form of expression, depending on the intention (e.g. using an LLM to generate poetry would be expression). The latter would put it in a category that is covered by the first amendment. I'd imagine there would be quite an uphill battle to argue that using a specific LLM that has been made permissibly available isn't protected in some circumstances
There is ample precedent in Bernstein v. United States that it is, in fact, free speech, and none that ought to be revisited here.
AFAICT, there's a differentiation that should be made between the model and the mobile app. TFA, and I'm assuming the bill, too, AFAICT, don't differentiate. The model seems unequivocally speech. Whether a mobile app can be banned seems like a different question; from other reporting it seems like the mobile app is laden with lovely things like keyloggers, and there, I can see "national security" might withstand scrutiny.
If the Senator were actually concerned about American's data, he'd pass some privacy laws. But the GOP is all laissez-faire capitalists these days, and they would not want the government telling American companies that that can't sell American data for money.
A downloaded model that can be run on US servers is covered by the first amendment as free speech. This is not the same circumstance as the law that required TikTok divest of its platform, which was over spying concerns[0]. You can’t spy on Americans when data is kept on US servers.
0. Per the TikTok Supreme Court ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community. But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.