Abstract
The advent of ChatGPT has sparked over a year of regulatory frenzy. However,few existing studies have rigorously questioned the assumption that, if leftunregulated, AI chatbot's output would inflict tangible, severe real harm onhuman affairs. Most researchers have overlooked the critical possibility thatthe information market itself can effectively mitigate these risks and, as aresult, they tend to use regulatory tools to address the issue directly. ThisArticle develops a yardstick for reevaluating both AI-related content risks andcorresponding regulatory proposals by focusing on inter-informationalcompetition among various outlets. The decades-long history of regulatinginformation and communications technologies indicates that regulators tend toerr too much on the side of caution and to put forward excessive regulatorymeasures when encountering the uncertainties brought about by new technologies.In fact, a trove of empirical evidence has demonstrated that market competitionamong information outlets can effectively mitigate most risks and thatoverreliance on regulation is not only unnecessary but detrimental, as well.This Article argues that sufficient competition among chatbots and otherinformation outlets in the information marketplace can sufficiently mitigateand even resolve most content risks posed by generative AI technologies. Thisrenders certain loudly advocated regulatory strategies, like mandatoryprohibitions, licensure, curation of datasets, and notice-and-response regimes,truly unnecessary and even toxic to desirable competition and innovationthroughout the AI industry. Ultimately, the ideas that I advance in thisArticle should pour some much-needed cold water on the regulatory frenzy overgenerative AI and steer the issue back to a rational track.