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

A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 254 posts

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#141

Post by Retric »

vulcan01 wrote: post #104
padolsey wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

They didn’t make $60B in Q4 2025 in Texas. 1.4B was 100% profit from Texas for years, that a big fine.

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#142

Post by rconti »

crimsonsupe wrote: post #51
raincole wrote: post #29

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.

> 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…

Sure they can be enforced. Your comment seems to be based on the idea of detecting AI writing from the output. But you can enforce this law based on the way content is created. The same way you can enforce food safety laws from conditions of the kitchen, not the taste of the food. Child labor laws can be enforced. And so on.

Unless you're trying to tell me that writers won't report on their business that's trying to replace them with AI.

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#143

Post by staticautomatic »

dweekly wrote: post #102

I'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. https://www.w3.org/community/ai-content-disclosure/ https://github.com/dweekly/ai-content-di…

How does one get involved?

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#144

Post by idle_zealot »

jandrese wrote: post #130
just_once wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does that look like? Can you describe your worst case scenario?

Highly selective enforcement along partisan lines to suppress dissent. Government officials forcing you to prove that your post is not AI generated if they don't like it. Those same officials claiming that it is AI generated regardless of the facts on the ground to have it removed and you arrested.

If you assume the use of law will be that capricious in general, then any law at all would be considered too dangerous for fear of use as a partisan tool.

Why accuse your enemies of using AI-generated content in posts? Just call them domestic terrorists for violently misleading the public via the content of their posts and send the FBI or DHS after them. A new law or lack thereof changes nothing.

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#146

Post by tedggh »

raincole wrote: post #29
padolsey wrote: post #20

I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Maybe there's an apathy and exhaustion to it. But if you're developing AI stuff, you need to keep on top of this. This is a pretty pivotal moment. NY has been busy with RAISE (frontier AI safety protocols, audits, incident reporting), S8420A (must disclose AI-generated performers in ads), GBL Article 47 (crisis detection & disclaimers for AI cha…

> 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.

Probably worse than that. I can totally see it being weaponized. A media company critic o a particular group or individual being scrutinized and fined. I haven’t looked at any of these laws, but I bet their language gives plenty of room for interpretation and enforcement, perhaps even if you are not generating any content with AI.

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#147

Post by saghm »

ameliaquining wrote: post #145

I'm not convinced that this law, if it passed, would survive a court challenge on First Amendment grounds. U.S. constitutional law generally doesn't look kindly on attempts to regulate journalism.

OTOH any challenge that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court right now has as much chance of being a decision that completely ignores constitutional law as it does being decided based on that.

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#148

Post by jaredklewis »

This is so dumb. Name literally any problem caused by AI generated content (there are dozens to choose from) and I will explain why this law will make absolutely no impact on that issue.

Now articles from organizations with legitimate journalists and fact checkers like the NYT, WSJ, or the economist will need an “AI generated” badge because they used an AI assistant and they have risk adverse legal departments. This will be gleefully pointed out by every brain dead Twitter conspiracy theorist, Breitbart columnist, 911 truther substack writer, and Russian spam bot as they happily spew unbadged drivel out into the world. Thanks so much New York!

AI doesn’t make bad news content. Complete disregard for objective reality does. I’ll take an ai assisted human that actually cares about truth over an unassisted partisan hooligan every time.

If this is the best our legislatures can come up with we are so utterly fucked…

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#149

Post by kaicianflone »

This feels like a symptom of a deeper issue: we’re treating AI outputs as if they’re authoritative when they’re really just single, unaccountable generations. Disclaimers help, but they don’t fix the decision process that produced the content in the first place.

One approach we’ve been exploring is turning high-stakes AI outputs (like news summaries or classifications) into consensus jobs: multiple independent agents submit or vote under explicit policies, with incentives and accountability, and the system resolves the result before anything is published. The goal isn’t “AI is right,” but “this outcome was reached under clear rules and can be audited.”

That kind of structure seems more scalable than adding disclaimers after the fact. We’re experimenting with this idea on an open source CLI at https://consensus.tools if anyone’s interested in the underlying mechanics.

Re: A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content

#150

Post by charcircuit »

orwin wrote: post #134
charcircuit wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I did go immediately on release. I was finally able to correct articles that have been inaccurate on Wikipedia for years.

So you noticed how poor the prose was? Really unbearable to read.

I found it fine to read and it handled controversial subjects much better than Wikipedia.
Post reply on HN