I've followed a similar path, read the article (very nicely written), watched the video at 1.25x speed skipping familiar parts, listening to Q&A at 54:24 (questions about the EU GPDR, AI folks leaving to other countries, insurance companies), and skimming over the paper. Goldman's angle is that regulation can stifle AI innovation, which seems fair. IMHO, part of the push to regulate comes from the over-extra-ultra-hyper-hype that this tech has been given by its promoters, which should freak-out just about every reasonable human being on planet earth. At the end of his paper, Goldman suggests that "It would help to rebrand Generative AI to distance it from “AI.”". Maybe ... and just for laughs I would suggest: Computer Algorithms for Creative Assistance (CACA) (eh-eh-eh!).
Another big issue though is the degree to which genAI is truly creative, rather than a "plagiarist", or a "liar". I did not find the images produced by DALL-E in Goldman's talk to be particularly creative (they seem cut from one same, relatively boring, cloth, to me). Also, plenty of content creators and artists have found genAI's more convinving outputs to be essentially copies of their own work, sometimes verbatim (hence the many copyright lawsuits). And, if Chief Justice Roberts believes AI can assist the poor in their legal defenses, and it is so great, even as OpenAI (and Microsoft) trust that they are developing superhuman-intelligence, that can pass entry tests to med school, law school, and what have you, then why don't they just put their money where their mouth is and use ChatGPT as their one and unique lawyer in the copyright court case against them brought by the New York Times?
...just my two-pence on this.