Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 法律學院
  3. 法律學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92607
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor莊世同zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorShih-Tung Chuangen
dc.contributor.author柯甯予zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorNing-Yu Koen
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-08T16:06:43Z-
dc.date.available2024-05-09-
dc.date.copyright2024-05-08-
dc.date.issued2024-
dc.date.submitted2024-05-02-
dc.identifier.citation中文文獻
林子儀(1999),〈言論自由之理論基礎〉,《言論自由與新聞自由》。
——(1999),The Right to Receive Under the Freedom of Speech,《言論自由與新聞自由》,頁299。
官曉薇(2016),〈美國法上對於公司言論自由保障之反思——論美國最高法院 Citizens United v. F.E.C判決〉,《臺北大學法學論叢》第29期,頁6-7。
邱文聰(2020),第二波人工智慧知識學習與生產對法學的挑戰 — 資訊、科技與社會
研究及法學的對話,《法律思維與制度的智慧轉型》
莊世同(2022),法律、尊嚴與消極自由:反思德沃金的倫理獨立性論證,《哲學與文化》 49卷2期 (2022/02)
許炳華(2021),新興溝通科技與言論自由-可能之定位暨思維,國立中正大學法學集刊,第70期頁32-34,2021年1月。
陳柏良(2020),AI時代之分裂社會與民主──以美國法之表意自由與觀念市場自由
競爭理論為中心,月旦法學雜誌,第302期,頁111-116,2020年7月。
陳仲嶙(2022),〈反思私法人的憲法權利地位〉,《臺大法學論叢》第51卷第3 期,頁619-620。
顏厥安(2018),人之苦難,機器恩典必看顧安慰:人工智慧、心靈與演算法社會,政治與社會哲學評論,第66期,頁103-150(2018/09)。


外文文獻
Adamopoulou, Eleni and Lefteris Moussiades. 2020. An Overview of Chatbot Technology. AIAI 2020: Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations pp 373–383.
Adamopoulou, Eleni and Lefteris Moussiades. Chatbots: History, technology, and applications. Machine Learning with Applications Volume 2, 15 December 2020, 100006.
Alexander, Larry. 2005. Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, Larry. 2015. Redish on Freedom of Speech, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 593.
Arcila, Beatriz Botero. 2023. Is it a Platform? Is it a Search Engine? It''s Chat GPT! The European Liability Regime for Large Language Models. Journal of Free Speech Law, Vol. 3, Issue 2, 2023.
Amin, Gulshan and Wajiha Shahid, Yiran Li, Dakota Staples. 2022. Are You a Cyborg, Bot or Human? A Survey on Detecting Fake News Spreaders. January 2022 IEEE Access 10(8):1-1
Atik, Jeffery and Karl Manheim. 2023. White Paper: AI Outputs and the First Amendment. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-20
Atik, Jeffery and Karl Manheim. 2023. AI Outputs and the Limited Reach of the First Amendment. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-36
Balkin, Jack M. 2015. The Path of Robotics Law. California Law Review, Forthcoming Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 536.
Banteka, Nadia. 2021. Artificially Intelligent Persons. Houston Law Review, Vol. 58 (2020)
Barendt, Eric. 2007. Freedom of Speech Oxford: 2nd edn, OUP 2007 .
Benjamin Stuart.2013. Algorithms and Speech, 161 U. PA. L. REV. 1445(2013)
Bessi, Alessandro and Emilio Ferrara, Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion.
Bhagwat, Ashutosh and James Weinstein. 2021. Freedom of Expression and Democracy. The Oxford Handbook of FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Oxford University Press.
Birhane, Abeba, Dijk, Jelle van & Pasquale, Frank. 2020. Debunking Robot Rights Metaphysically, Ethically, and Legally.
Brison, Susan. 1998. The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech. Ethics 108 (2):312-339.
Calo, Ryan. 2017. Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap.
Calo, Ryan and Madeline Lamo. 2018. Regulating Bot Speech. UCLA Law Review, 2019.
Chalmers, David. 2023. Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?
Collins, Ronald K. L. and David M. Skover. 2018. Robotica: Speech Rights and Artificial Intelligence. John Berger ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2018.
Davis, Clayton B. and Emilio Ferrara and Onur Varol and Filippo Menczer and Alessandro Flammini. 2016 .The Rise of Social Bots. Communications of the ACM 59 (7), 96-104, 2016.
Deepmind, Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models.
Frantz, Laurent B.1962. The First Amendment in the Balance, 71 YALE L.J. 1424, 1443 (1962)
Garvey, James B. .2022. Let''s Get Real: Weak Artificial Intelligence Has Free Speech Rights, 91 Fordham L. Rev. 953.
Gorodnichenko, Pham, and Talavera. 2021.Social Media, Sentiment and Public Opinions. European Economic Review Volume 136, July 2021, 103772
Greasley, Kate. 2019. The Morality of Lying and the Murderer at the Door. Law and Philosophy Vol. 38, No. 5/6, SEANA SHIFFRIN''S "SPEECH MATTERS" (October-December 2019).
Harel, Alon. 2011. Freedom of Speech. COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY OF LAW.
Harris, Keith Raymond. 2023. Liars and Trolls and Bots Online: The Problem of Fake Persons. Philosophy and Technology 36 (2):1-19 (2023)
Hasen, Richard L. 2017. Cheap Speech and What It Has Done. First Amendment Law Review, Vol. 16, Symposium Issue, 2018.
Hashimoto, Mark Lemley.2023 WHERE’S THE LIABILITY IN HARMFUL AI SPEECH?
Kendrick, Leslie. 2017. Are Speech Rights for Speakers? Virginia Law Review , December 2017, Vol. 103, No. 8 (December 2017)
Kendrick, Leslie. 2016. How Much Does Speech Matter?Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 8.
Knight, Will. 2017.The dark secret at the heart of AI. MIT TECH. REV. (April 11, 2017)
Lessig, Lawrence. 2021. The First Amendment Does Not Protect Replicants. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 21-34.
Li, Deyi, He, Wen & Guo, Yike. 2021. Why AI still doesn’t have consciousness?
Marmor, Andrei . 2016. Two Rights of Free Speech. Cornell Law School research paper No. 16-37.
Mill, John Stuart. 2003. On Liberty. David Bromwich & George Kateb eds., 2003.
Meiklejohn, Alexander. 1948. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government . Harper Brothers 1948.
Meiklejohn, Alexander. 1960. Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People
Meiklejohn, Alexander. 1961. The First Amendment is an Absolute. 1961 SUP. CT. REV. 255 (1961)
Nerf, Gina and Peter Nagy. 2016. Talking to Bots: Symbiotic Agency and the Case of Tay. International Journal Of Communication, 10, 17.
Norton, Helen. 2021. Manipulation and the First Amendment. 30 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 221 (2021)
Norton, Helen and Toni M. Massaro. 2016. Siri-ously? Free Speech Rights and Artificial Intelligence. 110 Nw. U. L. REV. 1169 (2016).
Norton, Helen. 2018. Robotic Speakers and Human Listeners. 41 Seattle University Law Review 1145 (2018)
Post, Robert. 2011. Participatory Democracy and Free Speech. VA. L. REV. Volume 97, Issue 3.
Post, Robert. 2011. Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply. 97 VA. L. REV. 617, 626–27 (2011).
Perault, Matt. 2023. Section 230 Won’t Protect ChatGPT.
Salib, Peter N. 2024. AI Outputs Are Not Protected Speech. U of Houston Law Center No. 2024-A—5.
Schauer, Frederick. 2004. The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience. 117 HARV. L. REV. 1765, 1777-84 (2004).
Schauer, Frederick.1982. Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (CUP 1982) .
Schauer, Frederick. 2003. The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience. KSG Working Paper Series No. RWP03-024
Shiffrin, Seana. 2014. Speech Matters:On Lying, Morality, and the Law. Princeton University Press.
Shiffrin, Seana. 2011. Reply to Critics. Constitutional Commentary Volume 27 Page 417.
Shiffrin, Seana. 2011. A Thinker-Based Approach to Freedom of Speech. 27 CONST. COMMENT. 288 (2011).
Shiffrin, Seana. 2011. Methodology in Free Speech Theory. Virginia Law Review Vol. 97, No. 3 (May 2011), pp. 549-558
Scanlon, T.M. 2011. Comment on Shiffrin''s Thinker-Based Approach to Freedom of Speech. Constitutional Commentary. 1071.
Schroeder, Jared. 2020. Hannah Arendt’s machines: Re-Evaluating marketplace theory in the AI era.
Shagrir, Oron. 2005. The Rise and Fall of Computational Functionalism. Hilary Putnam, Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, Cass. 2023. Artificial Intelligence and First Amendment.
Surden, Harry. 2019. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LAW: AN OVERVIEW. 35 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2019).
Susser, Daniel, Roessler Beate and Nissenbaum Helen.2019. Online Manipulation: Hidden Influences in a Digital World CITE AS: 4 GEO. L. TECH. REV. 1 (2019).
Taecharungroj, Viriya. 2023. “What Can ChatGPT Do?” Analyzing Early Reactions to the Innovative AI Chatbot on Twitter. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7(1), 35.
Tanasoca, Ana. 2019. Against Bot Democracy: The Dangers of Epistemic Double-Counting. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, Nagel. 1974. What Is It Like to Be a Bat? The Philosophical Review, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Oct., 1974), pp. 435-450.
Tushnet, Mark. 2016. The Coverage/Protection Distinction in the Law of Freedom of Speech—An Essay on Meta-Doctrine in Constitutional Law. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 16-26
Volokh, Eugene and Donald Falk. 2012. First Amendment Protection for Search Engine Search Results -- White Paper Commissioned by Google. UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 12-22.
Volokh, Eugene and Mark A. Lemley & Peter Henderson. 2023. Freedom of Speech and AI Output. Journal of Free Speech Law | 3:113 | 2023.
Weinstein, James. Seana Shiffrin''s Thinker-Based Theory of Free Speech: Elegant and Insightful, But Will It Work in Practice? (2011). Constitutional Commentary. 457.
Weinstein, James. 2011. Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 3, p. 491, 2011
Woolley, Samuel C. 2020. Bots and Computational Propaganda: Automation for Communication and Control. social media and democracy, Cambridge University Press.
Wu, Tim. 2013. Machine Speech. 161 U. PA. L. REV. 1495 (2013)
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92607-
dc.description.abstract隨著資訊科學技術的盛行,聊天AI(或稱chatbot、聊天機器人)在網路上業已成為政治與商業的宣傳工具,其進一步引發的種種網路問題也越來越受到重視,特別是在大型語言模型(Large Language Model,簡稱LLM)已具備相當高的表達能力與自主性的情況下,聊天AI是否具有言論自由也將成為重要的問題。對此,本文希望針對聊天AI言論是否受言論自由保護涵蓋的問題給予初步的答案,並對這一議題的基本問題,如言論歸屬及閱聽者取徑,提供一些看法。

然而,不同於過去學者針對的一般性問題,本文想做出的貢獻在於更細緻地區分不同的聊天AI使用情境,並論證某些情境受到的言論自由保護程度與其他情境不同。本文認為,這一做法相較於一般性的回答「聊天AI言論有/無言論自由保障」,更能夠聚焦在聊天AI引發的實際問題上。

具體而言,本文認為聊天AI假扮人類在網路散播特定言論的問題,主要在於「隱瞞身份」。而在Seana Shiffrin的理論框架下,這種隱瞞身份可以被視為一種自傳性謊言(autobiographical lies),而不具言論自由保護的價值。但本文也會指出,自傳性謊言只是聊天AI問題的表象,其本質不僅僅是謊言,還是一種惡意操縱(manipulation),因此這一情境下的聊天AI言論不僅沒有言論自由價值,亦不具有容忍的餘地。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractWith the prevalence of information science and technology, chat AIs (also known as chatbots or social bots) have become propaganda tools in politics and commerce on the internet. The various internet-related issues further triggered by this have been receiving increasing attention, especially as large language models (LLMs) have gained considerable expressive capability and autonomy. Whether chat AIs have freedom of speech will become an important question. In this regard, this paper aims to provide a preliminary answer to the question of whether the speech of chat AIs is covered by freedom of speech protection, and to offer some perspectives on basic issues such as speech attribution and audience reception.

However, unlike the general questions scholars have addressed in the past, this paper seeks to contribute by more finely distinguishing between different scenarios of chat AI usage and arguing that the degree of freedom of speech protection in certain scenarios differs from others. The paper argues that this approach, compared to providing a general answer to whether chat AI speech is protected by freedom of speech, can better focus on the practical issues arising from chat AIs.

Specifically, the paper argues that the problem of chat AIs impersonating humans to spread specific speech on the internet primarily lies in "identity concealment." Within Seana Shiffrin''s theoretical framework, this concealment can be seen as a form of autobiographical lie and lacks the value of freedom of speech protection. However, the paper also points out that autobiographical lies are only superficial manifestations of the problem with chat AIs; their essence is not only lying but also manipulation. Therefore, the speech of chat AIs in this scenario not only lacks the value of freedom of speech but also lacks accomodation.
en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-05-08T16:06:43Z
No. of bitstreams: 0
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2024-05-08T16:06:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.tableofcontents第壹章 問題架構與問題意識 1
第一節 一般性問題架構 1
第二節 文獻回顧 4
第一項 四個時期 4
國內的文獻討論 13
第二項 以問題架構來分析文獻 14
第三節 問題意識與文章架構 20
第貳章 聊天機器人及其危害 24
第一節 AI是什麼? 24
第一項 AI發展階段 25
第二項 強/弱AI 27
第二節 聊天AI的介紹 29
第一項 聊天AI的歷史 30
第二項 聊天機器人的影響 33
第參章 一般性問題概述 37
第一節 本章架構 37
第二節 人類作為言論者 38
第三節 以人類作為閱聽者 44
第一項 言論自由的保護對象 46
第二項 Alexander的三個論證與Kendrick的回應 49
第三項 權利衝突論證 53
第四項 保護程度 57
第四節 小結 58
第肆章 AI作為權利主體的可能性 60
第一節 本章架構 60
第二節 後果式理論下的言論自由權利主體 62
第一項 民主健全理論 62
第二項 真理理論 64
第三項 民主健全理論與真理理論下聊天AI的地位 65
第三節 自主性理論——從Shiffrin的thinker-based理論出發 68
第一項 理論目標 68
第四項 對thinker-based批評與回應 74
第五項 Shiffrin的理論如何看待聊天AI? 79
第四節 小結 81
第伍章 重探人類作為權利主體:論謊言與操縱 82
第一節 本章架構 82
第二節 Seana Shiffrin對謊言的分析 86
第一項 定義謊言 87
第二項 謊言的道德錯誤 89
第三項 謊言不受言論自由保護 90
第三節 聊天AI的謊言、容忍問題與操縱 100
第一項 對謊言的容忍 101
第二項 結論:聊天AI與操縱性言論 103
第四節 小結 107
第陸章 結論與未竟之業 109
參考文獻 112
-
dc.language.isozh_TW-
dc.subject操縱zh_TW
dc.subject思考者取徑zh_TW
dc.subject言論自由zh_TW
dc.subject大型語言模型zh_TW
dc.subject人工智慧zh_TW
dc.subject謊言zh_TW
dc.subjectManipulationen
dc.subjectArtificial Intelligenceen
dc.subjectLarge Language Modelen
dc.subjectFreedom of Speechen
dc.subjectThinker Based Approachen
dc.subjectLieen
dc.title聊天機器人的言論自由權利分析zh_TW
dc.titleAnalysis of Free Speech Right for Social Boten
dc.typeThesis-
dc.date.schoolyear112-2-
dc.description.degree碩士-
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee顏厥安;陳弘儒zh_TW
dc.contributor.oralexamcommitteeChueh-An Yen;Hung-Ju Chenen
dc.subject.keyword人工智慧,大型語言模型,言論自由,思考者取徑,謊言,操縱,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordArtificial Intelligence,Large Language Model,Freedom of Speech,Thinker Based Approach,Lie,Manipulation,en
dc.relation.page116-
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU202400920-
dc.rights.note同意授權(限校園內公開)-
dc.date.accepted2024-05-02-
dc.contributor.author-college法律學院-
dc.contributor.author-dept法律學系-
dc.date.embargo-lift2029-05-01-
顯示於系所單位:法律學系

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-112-2.pdf
  未授權公開取用
1.8 MBAdobe PDF檢視/開啟
顯示文件簡單紀錄


系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved