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

181–190 of 254 posts

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

#181

Post by mbreese »

_blk wrote: post #171
frumplestlatz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is when a human publishes it. Which is why they're also liable for it.

I agree in general and that should be the position but it's probably more nuanced than this in practice: who published it when it's a dev that writes a script that just spits junk into the wild or reinforces someone else's troll-speech?

In general, I think LLM content has been found to not be copyrightable, but it would still speech when it's published. It would be the speech of the company publishing it, not the dev that wrote the script. So, ai-junk-news.com is still publishing some kind of speech, even if it was an LLM that wrote it. At least, that would be my interpretataion.

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

#182

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #173
vablings wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Essentially useless if everyone slaps on that label. Kinda like hospital alarm fatigue. But this just my uninformed opinion, perhaps those that work in the health industry think differently.

Maybe it’s not a fair comparison, but I think it’s been shown that tobacco warnings are effective even though they’re so common to be “fatigued”.

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

#183

Post by DrinkingRedStar »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #182
8cvor6j844qw_d6 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially useless if everyone slaps on that label. Kinda like hospital alarm fatigue. But this just my uninformed opinion, perhaps those that work in the health industry think differently.

Maybe it’s not a fair comparison, but I think it’s been shown that tobacco warnings are effective even though they’re so common to be “fatigued”.

I do believe this is an unfair comparison. With tobacco the warnings are always true, but with prop 65 the product might not contain any cancer causing ingredients, but the warning is there just in case.

It's much easier to tell yourself prop 65 doesn't have to be avoided because "it's probably just there to cover their asses" wile tobacco products have real warnings that definitely mean danger (though there are people who convince themselves otherwise_

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

#184

Post by Der_Einzige »

songodongo wrote: post #53
crimsonsupe wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And you can easily prompt your way out of the typical LLM style. “Written in the style of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road”

This still doesn't remove all the slop. You need sampler or fine-tuning tricks for it. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061

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

#185

Post by sebastiennight »

Wistar wrote: post #133
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

… or the sesame seed labeling law that resulted in sesame seeds being added to everything. https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...

Wow, it's always amazing to me how the law of unintended consequences (with capitalistic incentives acting as the Monkey's Paw) strikes everytime some well-intended new law gets passed.

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

#186

Post by Der_Einzige »

ddtaylor wrote: post #174
mothballed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oregon and New York both are still trying to work their way up the 'rule of law' pyramid past the base level of stopping fetnanyl and meth heads from robbing convenience stores and parked cars. Every moment spent on enforcing AI disclaimers instead is an affront to the populace.

I'm well aware. I left Oregon 3 weeks ago and live in DC. Junkies spit on your wife and children while the police watch and say "not enough spit landed" and refuse to arrest anyone. When your property is stolen they will look at you like you're crazy for wanting it investigated or recovered. It has a tracker in it and the device says it's in that pile of stolen stuff near those tweakers. Good riddance Oregon!

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Oregonians have more personal freedom than almost any other state. Ron Wyden is by far the best sitting senator. It's a remarkably pro-gun state for being so left wing. Just use your tech bro money and live in a suburb. Cheapest weed in America. legalish shrooms. It's harder here than almost anywhere else for cops to fk your life up. Good.

Also it's objectively very low on violent crime, and the problems you talk about are in every PNW city, i.e. SF, Portland, Vancouver (WA), Vancouver (BC), Seattle. They're also the places where all the innovation, including AI (despite the non SF cities hatred for it), is happening.

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

#187

Post by chrisjj »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #176
chrisjj wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the idea that you can just ban AI from certain settings is a fantasy because there’s no technical way to actually guarantee enforcement. By that token bans on illegal drugs are fantasy. Whereas in fact, enforcement doesn't need to be guaranteed to be effective. There may be little technical means to distinguish at the moment. But could that have something to do with lack of motivation? Let's see how many "AI" $$$ s…

Well considering how ineffective the War on Drugs has been - is that really a great analogy?

> considering how ineffective the War on Drugs has been

Relative to no war on drugs? Who knows.

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

#188

Post by Retric »

ninalanyon wrote: post #154
Retric wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Big for Texas, not for Meta.

It’s under 5 hours of GDP for Texas. It’s a big fine, but not a huge deal for either party.

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

#189

Post by hashstring »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #164
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]

I, and I believe many others, do hold him responsible for it.

However, I do not think starting there is a good idea: your progress in other areas would stall until that crook has been dealt with.

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

#190

Post by slg »

clickety_clack wrote: post #160
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There just can’t be a way to discriminate on the spectrum from “we use AI to tidy up the spelling and grammar” to “we just asked ChatGPT to write a story on x”, so the disclaimer will make it look like everyone just asked ChatGPT.

>There just can’t be a way to discriminate on the spectrum from “we use AI to tidy up the spelling and grammar” to “we just asked ChatGPT to write a story on x”

Why though? Did the AI play the role of an editor or did it play the role of a reporter seems like a clear distinction to me and likely anyone else familiar enough with how journalism works.

Post reply on HN