
No, we're not. We're talking about your chatbot. We're talking about Bing Chat.
On the public record
Every politician on the site, every statement on file. Search, filter, and read the public record.
22,900+·quotes on file

No, we're not. We're talking about your chatbot. We're talking about Bing Chat.

If you are the champion of those people why in the hell would you flood the Nation with competition to those individuals, and drive down their wages?

I missed a series of votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 383, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 384, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 385. personal explanation

I don't want American companies to be aiding in any way the Chinese government and their oppressive tactics.

we don't make the same mistakes that Congress made with social media where, 30 years ago now, Congress basically outsourced social media to the biggest corporations in the world.

I regret that I missed roll call votes today, due to the birth of my fourth grandchild. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 383, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 384, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 385. ____________________

But your safety architecture didn't stop an adult.

This begs the question, why would someone--why would anyone have the political lunacy to take on this public policy?

Why in the world would any political party, or any President of the United States decide let us open up the borders?

It is just obvious that you cannot have a free border State and a welfare State.

I completely endorse--and good, the technology is being used properly, we probably need an export control regime that weaves those three things together.

You'd condemn what the Chinese government's doing to the Uyghurs, and the Xinjiang Province, and all of that?

What did the White House do? Well, over a period of years, they met with, on a regular basis, the leaders of social media companies, and demanded that the speech they did not like be taken down.

I'm just asking you why we should trust you with our children.

Because what the Court of Appeals found is that the White House--not just the Federal Government, but the White House--actively coerced every major social media platform in America.

Do we want 13-year-olds to be having those conversations?

In what circumstances would the parents have access?

we don't make the same mistakes that Congress made with social media where, 30 years ago now, Congress basically outsourced social media to the biggest corporations in the world.