There has been increased attention toward the datasets that are used to train and build AI technologies from the computer science and social science research communities, but less from legal scholarship. Both Large-Scale Language Datasets (LSLDs) and Large-Scale Computer Vision Datasets (LSCVDs) have been at the forefront of such discussions, due to recent controversies involving the use of facial recognition technologies, and the discussion of the use of publiclyavailable textfor the training of massive models which generate humanlike text. Many of these datasets serve as "benchmarks" to develop models that are used both in academic and industry research, while others are used solely for training models. The process of developing LSLDs and LSCVDs is complex and contextual, involving dozens of decisions about what kinds of data to collect, label, and train a model on, as well as how to make the data available to other researchers. However, little attention has been paid to mapping and consolidating the legal issues that arise at different stages of this process: when the data is being collected, after the data is used to build and evaluate models and applications, and how that data is distributed more widely.
Many authors have assumed that social media platforms make use of their own First Amendment rights when they moderate content and amplify messages written by others on their platforms. This vision relies on the fact that platforms should be seen as 'speaking' through their ranking decisions and their removal decisions. This is because companies -through their written software, built by their engineers are said to communicate their editorial choices and predictions for users. This article argues, to the contrary, that social media platforms are not speakers -- and more precisely that their recommendation and content moderation system is not speech for the purpose of the First Amendment.
Autonomous vehicle (AV) technology offers specific promises that no other technology has yet offered -the prospect of radically reducing road fatalities, a significant reduction in the number and severity of incidents, along with environmental and societal benefits. This Article takes an interdisciplinary approach to understand and create a basis for legal discussion for further development and offers tools for policymakers seeking concrete principles on which to define potential laws and regulations. In doing so, this Article comprehensively surveys the emerging federal and state statutory and legislative developments, reviews existing laws regarding AVs, and answers the question of whether these regulations are adequate or should be revised in light of the particular features of AV technology. This Article finds that there is still a significant aspect of AVs that have yet to be addressed in state regulations and that inconsistencies between them are significant. This Article makes the case for federal regulatory and legislative action that would ensure safe and reliable testing and operation of AVs and harmonization among states in the future.