131–140 of 254 posts
What I'd really like to see is a label on original reporting. Even beyond AI, the vast majority of news is re-packaging information you got from somewhere else. AI can replace the re-writers, but not the original journalists, people who spoke to primary sources (or who were themselves eyewitnesses). Any factual document should reference its sources. If not, it should be treated skeptically, regardless of whether AI o…
[Edit: spelling sigh]
Earlier 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.
Or it'll end up like California cancer warnings: every news site will put the warning on, just in case, making it worthless.
https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you go on grokipedia at release? I still sometimes loose myself reading stuff on Wikipedia, I guarantee you that this can't happen on grok, so much noise between facts it's hard to enjoy.
Yes I did go immediately on release. I was finally able to correct articles that have been inaccurate on Wikipedia for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
~Everything will use AI at some point. This is like requiring a disclaimer for using Javascript back when it was introduced. It's unfortunate but I think ultimately a losing battle. Plus if you want to mandate it, hidden markers (stenography) to verify which model generated the text so people can independently verify if articles were written by humans (emitted directly by the model) is probably the only feasible way.…
It would make sense to have a more general law about accountability for the contents of news. If news is significantly misleading or plagiarizing, it shouldn’t matter if it is due to the use of AI or not, the human editorship should be liable in either case. This is a concept at least in some EU countries, that there has to always be one person responsible in terms of press law for what is being published.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> That could do more harm than good. The downside to having labels on AI-written political comments, stellar reviews of bad products, speeches by a politician, or supposed photos of wonderful holiday destinations in ads targeted at old people are what, exactly? Are you really arguing that putting a label on AI generated content could do more harm than just leaving it (approximately) indistinguishable from the real th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those bills/laws involve legislating publishing though. This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue, so it going to be tougher to enforce and keep from getting overturned in the courts. The question here are what are the limits the government can have on what a company publishes, regardless of how the content is generated. IMO, It’s a much tougher problem (leg…
Is AI-generated text speech?
Step 2: outlets slap this disclaimer on all content, regardless of AI usage, making it useless Step 3: regulator prohibits putting label on content that is not AI generated Step 4: outlets make sure to use AI for all content Let's call it the "Sesame effect"
This would be an improvement in my book. I'm a data journalist, and I use AI in some of my work (data processing, classification, OCR, etc.). I always disclose it in a "Methodology" section in the story. I wouldn't trust any reporting that didn't disclose the use of AI, and if an outlet slapped a disclaimer on their entire site, I wouldn't trust that outlet.
We've seen this movie - see California prop 65 warnings on literally every building. It also doesn't work to penalize fraudulent warnings - they simply include a harmless bit of AI to remain in compliance.
In 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…