Jennifer Huddleston and Christopher Gardner
At this year’s Silicon Flatirons Flagship Conference, yours truly, Jennifer Huddleston, took part in a lighthearted debate on whether we should ban chatbots. The debate was far more fun with requisite Taylor Swift references supplied. But the underlying questions deserve more serious treatment. This is especially in light of Senator Josh Hawley’s bill to ban AI chatbots, introduced in October 2025, and similar proposals in various states, including California, Virginia, and Illinois.
In short, while every individual may have different preferences in their use or avoidance of chatbots, banning chatbots in law would have a number of concerning consequences for innovation and speech. In this blog post, we explore the question of banning chatbots a bit more seriously.
Banning Chatbots Would Likely Ban More Than We Think
Banning chatbots would not be simple. Defining artificial intelligence (AI) is difficult, and limiting it to chatbots does not solve the problem. Even in a lighthearted debate, we had to account for the many uses of AI that are often overlooked, such as customer service and specific professional tools. In legislation, this is even more difficult, as laws lock in static definitions that could prevent both beneficial existing applications and innovative future uses of a technology.
Concerns about chatbots are often tied to their use by vulnerable kids and teens, concerns about particular types of content, like when Grok generated non-consensual sexual imagery or content linked to suicide or mental health. But attempts to limit the technology only to “beneficial” chatbots or those with more specific applications may eliminate innovative uses of general-purpose chatbots or stifle future advancements we aren’t yet aware of.
For example, an educational purpose exception might be able to cover Khan Academy’s personal tutor, but it doesn’t take into account how a student, teacher, or parent might use a general-purpose chatbot for a similar purpose. Or worse, limit our creativity in how these tools could be used to solve problems by deeming them acceptable in only a narrow set of use cases.
Additionally, such an approach certainly raises concerns about the government determining which applications individuals are entitled to access. This would easily set up the government to choose which innovators are winners or losers by making often subjective judgments about which products are deemed beneficial or low-risk enough to be allowed in the market. Unlike a car or other products, these decisions would involve questions around expression that raise concerns about the government making subjective determinations about speech.
In short, there is little agreement on the often vague harms of chatbots despite the headlines that they are making people “dumber” or leading to new mental health issues. Instead of trying to define chatbots and limit the technology at this stage due to the potential risk to some individuals, questions about technology’s impact on mental health or attention span merit more serious discussions about how these are playing out in society more generally.
What Would We Lose by Banning Chatbots?
There are, of course, concerning anecdotes about chatbots and vulnerable individuals who have gone down dark paths. It is easy to demonize a technology when we see such a tragedy. But there are also positive examples of individuals who have used chatbots as a form of connection when they might not otherwise have been ready to seek help from a human or were unable to access resources. Just as some individuals have had an extremely negative experience with chatbots, others have found them beneficial in ways previously thought impossible.
Some Americans from every background suffer from crushing loneliness, and it’s killing us. Some choose to seek professional help, facing stigma and risking discrimination in the process. Others simply can’t afford it. The cost of this lack of access is clear: suicide is the second leading cause of death for those between the ages of 10 and 34.
For many, chatbots offer a lifeline for those without strong support systems or access to professional help. They are available at all hours of the day, react without judgment, and represent a promising source of social support. Yet the impact of chatbots can go much further than just basic social support. For at least 30 people, GPT‑3 and GPT‑4 enabled chatbot Replika “stopped them from attempting suicide.” These are 30 anecdotes, and taken alone, they don’t represent something good or bad about chatbots. But these are also 30 Americans who thank a chatbot for keeping them alive.
In addition to being a resource for our most vulnerable, chatbots also represent a whole new frontier in accessibility. The world we live in can be difficult for some people to navigate. But many people have leveraged chatbots to help. For people with autism, ChatGPT can help them navigate complex social situations like arguments with friends or roommates. ChatGPT’s multimodal capabilities can also help those with visual impairments by instantaneously describing their environment and answering questions.
These uses demonstrate that chatbots are offering many paths to complete independence for the first time. Therapists and social workers are only available at certain hours of the day, usually for limited periods, and they can be prohibitively expensive. Chatbots, by contrast, are available on demand at any time of day. They can be accessed by one’s phone in almost any environment. And they are relatively cheap. These are just a few of the factors that weigh into people’s use of chatbots, but they make it clear that chatbots are actively changing the world in ways that allow people to live their lives with more freedom and safety—no matter how they were born.
We cannot focus only on harms without considering the benefits. This is not about going anecdote-for-anecdote on whether there are more positive or negative interactions, but about ensuring we know what the underlying issue is and how it compares to the status quo and its benefits. This includes the benefit of solutions and applications we could never imagine right now, as well as those that individuals are already experiencing. An overly precautionary approach limits a potential trajectory and eliminates not only potentially negative interactions but positive ones as well.
There Are Less Restrictive Means to Resolve Concerns
Just as with any technology, AI chatbots will be used or result in harm for some. This is not about debating whether bad things could happen, but about determining the best response and the appropriate government role. A variety of solutions exist that are far less restrictive than banning chatbots more generally.
First, we are seeing the industry respond with various solutions that allow responses to common concerns. Both Meta and OpenAI have announced various parental controls on their general AI chatbot products. Other industry efforts include using red-teaming type AI models to determine potential risks and identify ways to improve models to prevent the likelihood of toxic or problematic responses. Additionally, civil society groups like Common Sense and the Family Online Safety Initiative provide resources for parents or other users who want to understand the risk of exposure to certain content. Much like the internet before it, these market-based responses can help resolve problems in ways that fit both different technologies and individual needs without governments dictating what approach or specific controls are best.
If the government were to set policy, there are many steps that would be less restrictive than a total ban on a particular technology or application. Many of these would raise their own speech concerns, such as banning certain lawful, if distasteful, content. In many cases, the content in question, like non-consensual intimate imagery, is likely already covered by existing law, or those laws could be updated to ensure it is. While Jennifer has discussed concerns about mandatory AI disclosures, particularly when they are applied more generally, requiring a chatbot to disclose that it is a chatbot is certainly less restrictive than banning the technology entirely.
Banning a general-purpose technology such as chatbots to address more nuanced harms, or simply out of general distrust of technology or risks, would limit the expression and information rights of human users. As such, a ban would likely raise First Amendment concerns for both the designers and users of these tools, especially given evolving industry responses and less restrictive means available to resolve potential safety or other compelling government concerns.
Conclusion
A chatbot ban would ignore the various benefits of this technology that can extend far beyond writing silly poems. As with any tool, there is a potential for abuse, misuse, and harm; however, a ban or over-regulation not only eliminates any potential risks but also benefits. Banning a technology that reflects its creators’ and users’ expression rights also raises significant First Amendment concerns, given a variety of solutions that have only begun to be deployed and represent less restrictive means of resolving these issues.
