Recently, Calcutta High Court observed upon the generative AI platforms, including the very popular ChatGPT, in a matter of IndiaMART InterMesh Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IndiaMART”) and OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT.
A Legal Distinction: Originator vs. Intermediary
IndiaMart contended that ChatGPT is an ‘intermediary’ as defined under Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore would be governed by the rules framed under Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2021. Open AI on the other hand claimed that ChatGPT is an ‘originator’ as defined under Section 2(1)(za) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the originator referred to in Section 2(1)(za) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are the persons who send, generate, store or transmit the electronic messages and such definition was created long before the advent of generative AI and thus the same has to be interpreted in the backdrop of the legislation created long back.
ChatGPT: Beyond Conventional Search Engines
Commenting on how generative AI models, including LLMs, function differently than search engines, Justice Kapur noted how such models utilize large datasets to create direct synthesized responses to inputs. Thus, he averred, “ChatGPT is a generator of electronic records. It is not an intermediary. Thus, prima facie, ChatGPT would fall within the definition of an ‘originator’”.
The responses on ChatGPT are certainly uncertain and that uncertainty is what is new and that is what is original. It is thus generator of electronic records as opposed to an intermediary who merely acts as a conduit to information.
The Issue Remains Open for Final Adjudication
The Calcutta High Court held in prima facie opinion that ChatGPT is an ‘originator’ of electronic records as it generates new content whereas an intermediary merely functions as a conduit. It also observed that an ‘originator’ depends upon user prompts for generating the content and therefore it is a matter of great complexity and requires further consideration and needs to be finally adjudicated upon.
The issue of whether ChatGPT is an ‘intermediary’ or ‘originator’ thus is a complicated and vexed legal question that would require legislative intervention to be dealt with within the four corners of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as it stands today.
Conclusion
In nutshell, the ruling of Calcutta High Court in the matter of IndiaMart InterMesh Ltd v/s OpenAI is significant in terms of its observation on generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT. The case will also bring to the forefront various issues and likely lead to legislative changes, as is required to handle the challenges of evolving AI technology and to fix responsibility of AI platforms. We will be keeping a track on this development and shall post an update as and when more information becomes available.
Law and Other Things will be tracking this developing story for its updates.