Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.
Ideally, we would just ban AI content altogether.
A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
101–110 of 254 posts
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#102I've begun an AI content disclosure working group at W3C if folks are interested in helping to craft a standard that allows websites to voluntarily disclose the degree to which AI was involved in creating all or part of the page. That would enable publishers to be compliant with this law as well as the EU AI Act's Article 50.
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. That’s because they can’t be. People assume they’ve already figured out how AI behaves and that they can just mandate specific "proper" ways to use it. The reality is that AI companies and users are going to keep refining these tools until they're indistinguishable from human work whenever they want them to be. Even if the models stil…
> the idea that you can just ban AI from certain settings is a fantasy because there’s no technical way to actually guarantee enforcement. By that token bans on illegal drugs are fantasy. Whereas in fact, enforcement doesn't need to be guaranteed to be effective. There may be little technical means to distinguish at the moment. But could that have something to do with lack of motivation? Let's see how many "AI" $$$ s…
> By that token bans on illegal drugs are fantasy.
I think you have this exactly right. They are mostly enforced against the poor and political enemies.
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. But I actually believe they'll be. In the worst way possible: honest players will be punished disproportionally.
> Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. Time will tell. Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment. Once these laws are enacted, they lay quietly until someone has a big enough bone to pick with someone else. There are already many traumatic events occurring downstream from slapdash AI de…
Meta made $60B in Q4 2025. A one-time $1.4B fine, 20 years after enactment, is not "getting hammered".
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. But I actually believe they'll be. In the worst way possible: honest players will be punished disproportionally.
> Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. Time will tell. Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment. Once these laws are enacted, they lay quietly until someone has a big enough bone to pick with someone else. There are already many traumatic events occurring downstream from slapdash AI de…
That's even worse, because then it's not really a law, it's a license for political persecution of anyone disfavored by whoever happens to be in power.
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#106In 10-20 years all this AI disclaimer stuff is going to be like 'don't use wikipedia, it could lie!' Status Quo Bias is a real thing, and we are seeing those people in meltdown with the world changing around them. They think avoiding AI, putting disclaimers on it, etc... will matter. But they aren't being rational, they are being emotional. The economic value is too high to stop and the cat is out of the bag with 400…
I don't think that's true. The 'this battle is already over' attitude is the most defeatist strategy possible. It's effectively complying in advance, rolling over before you've attempted to create the best possible outcome. With that attitude we would not have voting, human rights (for what they're worth these days), unions, a prohibition on slavery and tons of other things we take for granted every day. I'm sure AI…
> With that attitude we would not have voting, human rights (for what they're worth these days), unions, a prohibition on slavery and tons of other things we take for granted every day.
None of these things were rolling back a technology. History shows that technology is a ratchet, the only way to get rid of a technology is social collapse or surplanting the technology with something even more useful or at the very least approximately as useful but safer.
Once a technology has proliferated, it's a fiat accompli. You can regulate the technology but turning the clock back isn't going to happen.
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#107What happens if I use linear regression on a chart? Where does one draw the line on "AI"?
Obviously people mean LLMs these days when talking about AI. Don't be obtuse.
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But they aren't being rational, they are being emotional. When your mind is so fried on slop that you start to write like one. > The economic value is too high to stop and the cat is out of the bag with 400B models on local computers. Look at all this value created like *checks notes* scam ads, apps that undress women and teenage girls, tech bros jerking each other off on twitter, flooding open source with tsunami…
You may not like it, but this is what peak economic performance looks like.
no, this is what massive subsidy looks like
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#109Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.
That could do more harm than good. Like how California's bylaw about cancer warnings are useless because it makes it look like everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer, which in turn makes people just ignore and tune-out the warnings because they're not actually delivering signal-to-noise. This in turn harms people when they think, "How bad can tobacco be? Even my Aloe Vera plant has a warning l…
> Don't let the AI lobby insist on anything that's touched an LLM getting labelled, because if it gets slapped on anything that's even passed through a spell-checker or saved in Notepad
People have been writing articles without the help of an LLM for decades.
You don't need an LLM for grammar and spell checking, arguably an LLM is less efficient and currently worse at it anyway.
The biggest help a LLM can provide is with research but that is only because search engines have been artificially enshitified these day. But even here the usefulness is very limited because of hallucinations. So you might be better off without.
There is no proof that LLMs can significantly improve the workflow of a professional journalist when it comes to creating high quality content.
So no, don't believe the hype. There will still be enough journalists not using LLMs at all.
Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. But I actually believe they'll be. In the worst way possible: honest players will be punished disproportionally.
> Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. Time will tell. Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment. Once these laws are enacted, they lay quietly until someone has a big enough bone to pick with someone else. There are already many traumatic events occurring downstream from slapdash AI de…
> Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment.
Sounds like ignoring it worked fine for them then.