Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 285 posts

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#111

Post by hbarka »

filoleg wrote: post #103
plants wrote: post #5

This is awesome! StreetEasy is how many New Yorkers find apartments. In the past few years, it has been flooded with AI-staged apartments. The AI stagings warp the room to fit furniture that would 100% certainly not fit there. It’s deceptive, and I’m glad it at least requires disclosure now (although I wish it were fully banned)

Not going to lie, I wish they also added a square footage as a legal requirement too. It is entirely baffling to me as to why, but NYC is the only major city in the US I've ever lived in where it is genuinely a problem. In all other cities, I had no issues with that, pretty much every single posting online had square footage. Meanwhile, on StreetEasy (and other platforms listing NYC rental units), looking for apartme…

> and I cannot think of a logical reason to not provide that information.

The reason is simple. Omission is deception.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#113

Post by weakfish »

Eridrus wrote: post #110
kennywinker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he doesn't actually have any power to do anything here. Landlords in nyc are doing business in nyc, which means the city can regulate them, does it not?

The Mayor is not a dictator and can't just make up laws or regulations. He can probably get DCWP to engage in the normal rule making process, but at most this is probably going to get some AI disclosure somewhere, which is what we had for "virtually staged" lies.

It’s directing the city to treat it as false advertising in existing law if I understand correctly

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#114

Post by Calavar »

ElProlactin wrote: post #109
estearum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Is your claim that every photo will be labeled as AI-modified, or that people won't label AI-modified images? If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. The entire issue is that the platforms are already inundated with misleading, unlabeled AI-modified images.

> If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. It's very unlikely to be trivial though because the state typically lacks the resources required to enforce things like this at scale. You'll need to find violators, meet a burden of proof that they violated the law, notify them, give them the right to defend themsleves against the allegation, etc. They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the pr…

> They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens.

The point of regulation isn't for the state to turn a profit. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that regulations that drive a monetary profit for the state are generally bad because they create a perverse incentive. For example, municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#115

Post by r0m4n0 »

Facebook marketplace driving me crazy lately. A lot of people post photos of antiques and other furniture with obvious AI staging. It’s hard to tell what is real and what isn’t. At least there I can just demand the normal photos. I know that isn’t the case with most rentals in NYC because it’s super competitive and already gated in ridiculous ways with brokers and real estate agents.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#116

Post by pclmulqdq »

filoleg wrote: post #103
plants wrote: post #5

This is awesome! StreetEasy is how many New Yorkers find apartments. In the past few years, it has been flooded with AI-staged apartments. The AI stagings warp the room to fit furniture that would 100% certainly not fit there. It’s deceptive, and I’m glad it at least requires disclosure now (although I wish it were fully banned)

Not going to lie, I wish they also added a square footage as a legal requirement too. It is entirely baffling to me as to why, but NYC is the only major city in the US I've ever lived in where it is genuinely a problem. In all other cities, I had no issues with that, pretty much every single posting online had square footage. Meanwhile, on StreetEasy (and other platforms listing NYC rental units), looking for apartme…

There is square footage on many NYC listings, but it’s wrong. They often have the square footage of the total area occupied by the apartment, including all the interior walls and columns that can take 20% of the area away.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#117

Post by Eridrus »

weakfish wrote: post #113
Eridrus wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mayor is not a dictator and can't just make up laws or regulations. He can probably get DCWP to engage in the normal rule making process, but at most this is probably going to get some AI disclosure somewhere, which is what we had for "virtually staged" lies.

It’s directing the city to treat it as false advertising in existing law if I understand correctly

Right, which is why all we're going to get it a label saying that AI was used (or maybe landlords will try to fly through on the label of "virtually staged" that they've been using).

Existing law doesn't have the authority to ban all AI images as inherently deceptive, and DCWP isn't going to be spending a bunch of time prosecuting individual images.

I agree with Mamdani that these images are often deceptive and misleading and sifting through the bullshit is annoying (and was annoying with virtually staged images too). It's just not going to go anywhere. The energy would be better spent on zoning and building code reform.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#119

Post by estearum »

ElProlactin wrote: post #109
estearum wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Is your claim that every photo will be labeled as AI-modified, or that people won't label AI-modified images? If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. The entire issue is that the platforms are already inundated with misleading, unlabeled AI-modified images.

> If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. It's very unlikely to be trivial though because the state typically lacks the resources required to enforce things like this at scale. You'll need to find violators, meet a burden of proof that they violated the law, notify them, give them the right to defend themsleves against the allegation, etc. They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the pr…

1. The point of laws is not to turn a profit on their enforcement

2. The burden of proof/right to defense/notifications etc are all quite a lot easier for licensed entities like real estate brokers – that's kind of the entire point of licensure

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#120

Post by ElProlactin »

Calavar wrote: post #114
ElProlactin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. It's very unlikely to be trivial though because the state typically lacks the resources required to enforce things like this at scale. You'll need to find violators, meet a burden of proof that they violated the law, notify them, give them the right to defend themsleves against the allegation, etc. They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the pr…

> They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens. The point of regulation isn't for the state to turn a profit. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that regulations that drive a monetary profit for the state are generally bad because they create a perverse incentive. For example, municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits be…

You're right that the point of regulation isn't to turn a "profit" but the laws of economics always apply. If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it.

You could create a private right of action for this, but that is its own bag of worms.

Post reply on HN