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

251–260 of 285 posts

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

#251

Post by everforward »

cr1895 wrote: post #212
9dev wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? Germany too. I wouldn’t even have thought this could be a problem…

Maybe it’s different for rentals but you’d think the banks would also want accurate data on the properties they’re mortgaging…and cities for tax revenue…so strange!

For big commercial rental properties they probably don’t care because it doesn’t really push the property value.

I don’t think it really changes the property value because those interior walls are usually cosmetic and not load bearing. If the bank has to foreclose, the next buyer will be well aware they can strip those walls out for nothing relative to the cost of buying the building.

I’m doubtful it pushes the tax revenue for the same reason, everyone is already evaluating based on what it could be.

Smaller units are probably just not worth the effort to manage. It’s a lot of over head to start auditing old duplexes where the owner has a property or two and isn’t a giant company with a whole compliance department.

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

#252

Post by [deleted] »

lopis wrote: post #226
Art9681 wrote: post #146

I am a big supporter of AI and use it heavily. I agree with this. It's not about AI at all. It's about a blanket ban to prevent deceit when selling a product or service. It should be depicted as it is. AI just lowers the barrier for deceit (unfortunately), but it's not the only tool that can be used towards that end. Ban all deceitful advertising.

AI should not be allowed in photos of products being sold, period. That's pure false advertising. Disclosing is not enough.

[deleted]

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

#253

Post by jefftk »

happytoexplain wrote: post #35
beambot wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does basic photoshop count as AI usage...? What about changing color balance, dynamic range, etc?

Obviously not, though they may count as misleading image manipulation, and should be similarly regulated. The problem is subjectivity - AI is just a convenient bright line with an easy definition.

I'm not sure the line defining what you would consider AI is actually all that bright. Sharpening? Content-aware fill? Seam carving? Style transfer? How would you define AI to draw the line where you want?

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

#254

Post by inigyou »

dmix wrote: post #248
inigyou wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making murder illegal doesn't imply that the government stalks you 24/7 to make sure you don't murder someone

Not every comment on the internet is 100% serious

In this context the opposite would be called "trolling" and is not allowed on HN.

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

#255

Post by Mezzie »

nonethewiser wrote: post #90
phyzome wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities in the US can pass laws. They're called local ordinances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_ordinance#United_States

And the mayor just writes them?

It depends on the municipality.

Usually, local laws are enacted by a city council with members elected to represent different areas of a municipality (and potentially some at-large seats). Legislation can come from a number of places: lobbying efforts (for example, there's a current effort for municipalities to ban data center development), citizen groups, specially formed committees (my city just had one to create and propose city charter revisions), or yes, occasionally the council members themselves. Typically, there are open council meetings where citizens can discuss their opinions.

In addition, some rules/regulations/taxes are directly put to a vote of the city/town population, and some regulations can be put in place by administrative departments in a locality. (Similar to things like EPA regulations on the federal level).

The specific implementations vary in accordance to municipal charters and how specific states handle the incorporation of local governments.

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

#256

Post by dmix »

inigyou wrote: post #254
dmix wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every comment on the internet is 100% serious

In this context the opposite would be called "trolling" and is not allowed on HN.

That is not even close to trolling. It's called a joke where you exaggerate the premise because it's an amusing thought.

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

#257

Post by estearum »

ElProlactin wrote: post #120
Calavar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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.

Seems empirically false given e.g. the immense investment we make in counter-drug enforcement.

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

#258

Post by HWR_14 »

Kwpolska wrote: post #239
pandaman wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Banks and cities only care about the price. They also want price to be under and over estimated respectively, neither would want the accurate price, even less so the accurate area.

Are there no property taxes in the US? And how do you know if the price is reasonable without knowing its relationship to the property size?

There are no US-wide property taxes. However, almost every home in the US has to pay property taxes to at least one level of government. That's what pandaman was referring to when they said the city (which would be levying the taxes) would want the footprint overstated so they could get more tax revenue

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

#259

Post by pandaman »

Kwpolska wrote: post #239
pandaman wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Banks and cities only care about the price. They also want price to be under and over estimated respectively, neither would want the accurate price, even less so the accurate area.

Are there no property taxes in the US? And how do you know if the price is reasonable without knowing its relationship to the property size?

There are property taxes in the US, they are levied on the appraisal price of the property, not on the living area. You know the price is reasonable from the comps. As you're overestimating or the appraisal is already at the legal cap (in case of taxes) you don't really care about the living area.

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

#260

Post by sidewndr46 »

kennywinker wrote: post #158
sidewndr46 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope they don't figure out virtually all housing is photographed with those weird lenses and the colors are enhanced digitally

What do you call a reverse slippery-slope argument? “All images are edited, therefore ai editing is ok.” Degrees of alteration matter, pretending ai images are the same as color retouching is dumb.

I guess for me, the question is how do you define each degree? If I say something like "Gemini, make the colors pop in my photos!" is that OK?
Post reply on HN