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

161–170 of 254 posts

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

#161

Post by mmooss »

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.

The primary obstacle is discussions like this one. It will be enforced if people insist it's enforced - the power comes from the voters. If a large portion of the population - especially the informed population, represented to some extent here on HN - thinks it's hopeless then it will be. If they believe they will get together to make it succeed, it will. It's that simple: Whatever people believe is the number one determination of outcome. Why do you think so many invest so much in manipulating public opinion?

Many people here love SV hackers who have done the impossible, like Musk. Could you imagine this conversation at an early SpaceX planning meeting? That was a much harder task, requiring inventing new technology and enormous sums of money.

Lots of regulations are enforced and effective. Your food, drugs, highways, airplane flights, etc. are all pretty safe. Voters compelling their representatives is commonplace.

It's right out of psyops to get people to despair - look at messages used by militaries targeted at opposing troops. If those opposing this bill created propaganda, it would look like the comments in this thread.

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

#162

Post by SkyBelow »

shimman wrote: post #156
SkyBelow wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you have to be able to prove it wasn't AI when the law is tested, and keeping records and proof you didn't use AI is going to be really difficult, if at all possible. For little people having fun, unless you poke the wrong bear, it won't matter. But for companies who are constantly the target of lawsuits, expect there to be a new field of unlabeled AI trolling comparable to patent trolling or similar. We alre…

"One regulation was kinda bad, so we should never regulate anything again." Good god, this is pathetic. Do you financially gain from AI or do you think it's hard to prove someone didn't use it? Like this is the bare minimum and you're throwing temper tantrums... The onus will be on the AI companies pushing these wares to follow regulations. If it makes it harder for the end user to use these wares, well too bad so sa…

>"One regulation was kinda bad, so we should never regulate anything again."

Please don't misrepresent what someone says. That does not lead to constructive dialog.

I gave a question challenging a specific way to regulate a specific thing, to indicate it is challenging. This is not the same as dismissing all regulations.

Also, please avoid the personal mentions.

>The onus will be on the AI companies pushing these wares to follow regulations.

That wasn't the challenge. The raised issue isn't AI companies labeling things AI. The given example included them very much following the regulation.

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

#163

Post by vablings »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #123
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.

Or it'll end up like California cancer warnings: every news site will put the warning on, just in case, making it worthless.

Known by the state of cancer to cause California. I do think P65 warnings are pretty useful for the most part jokes aside

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

#164

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

neilv wrote: post #159

> Any news content created using generative AI must also be reviewed by a human employee “with editorial control” before publication. To emphasize this: it's important that the organization assume responsibility, just as they would with traditional human-generated 'content'. What we don't want is for these disclaimers to be used like the disclaimers of tech companies deploying AI: to try to weasel out of responsibili…

[flagged]

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

#165

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

Galanwe wrote: post #62
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.

How about a pop-up on websites, next to the tracking cookie ones, to consent reading AI generated text? I see a bright future for the internet

Don’t give the EU any ideas

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

#167

Post by ntnsndr »

jfengel wrote: post #111

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…

For example, the Colorado Sun has labels on every story for the nature of reporting that went into it: https://coloradosun.com/

Some may find it surprising that this is left over from the Sun's early support from the crypto journalism project Civil.

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

#168

Post by elric »

xnorswap wrote: post #13
Llamamoe wrote: post #4

Ideally, 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…

I bought a piece of wooden furniture some time ago. It came with a label saying that the state of California knows it to be a carcinogen. I live in Belgium. It was weird.

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

#169

Post by mikkupikku »

jacquesm wrote: post #116
mikkupikku wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 l…

We have plenty of examples of regulated technology. And usually the general public does not have a direct stake in the outcome (ok, maybe broadcast spectrum regulation should be mentioned there), but this time they do and given what's at stake it may well be worth trying to define what a good set of possible outcomes would be and how to get there. As I mentioned above and which TFA is all about, the press for instanc…

As I said, technology can be regulated. And this technology will be regulated.

However the technology is nonetheless here to stay, until it's replaced with something better.

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

#170

Post by _blk »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #123
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.

Or it'll end up like California cancer warnings: every news site will put the warning on, just in case, making it worthless.

Yup. Or like "necessary cookies" that aren't all that necessary when it works just fine without.
Post reply on HN