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

201–210 of 254 posts

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

#201

Post by hashstring »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #192
hashstring wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like I’ve said a few times on HN, if you have 10 friends and ask them what they want to eat for dinner and 6 say “let’s go to a Mexican restaurants” and the other four say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, it still tells you a lot about your friend group. It tells you even more of the person advocating eating Bob is made the leader of your group and decides where you are going to eat dinner for the next four years. Espec…

Ok, but how does that relate to what I stated exactly?

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

#202

Post by mothballed »

fwip wrote: post #175
mothballed wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because compelled speech is an insult to free speech just as censored speech is.

How do you feel about the fact that manufacturers need to list the ingredients of the food they sell you?

Not thrilled about it, and I personally would rather see them repealed. I will concede compelled speech impositions have been interpreted more generously when they are commercial. I don't necessarily agree with it, but even if we concede they can happen, I hope that distinction is made for commercial vs non-commercial content. Though I'm not thrilled with it happening for either.

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

#203

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

hashstring wrote: post #201
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I’ve said a few times on HN, if you have 10 friends and ask them what they want to eat for dinner and 6 say “let’s go to a Mexican restaurants” and the other four say “let’s kill Bob and eat him”, it still tells you a lot about your friend group. It tells you even more of the person advocating eating Bob is made the leader of your group and decides where you are going to eat dinner for the next four years. Espec…

Ok, but how does that relate to what I stated exactly?

Because it doesn’t matter if you or even 60% of the population doesn’t approve of what Trump is doing - including posting a racist meme showing the Obamas as apes yesterday - this tells you about the country we live in

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

#204

Post by CodingJeebus »

foxbarrington wrote: post #128
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…

A common reaction I get to https://forty.news is that the stories “need sources” which I always find funny. I don’t hear the same demand of sources from every other news outlet (I find it extra weird because all FN’s stories are 40 years old, simple to verify, and can’t push an agenda the same way). Totally agree with you: all newspapers should cite sources. What’s silly to me is how selectively people care—big outle…

> all newspapers should cite sources.

You'd lose a lot of valid sourcing if you made this a requirement. For example, the Catholic Church scandal investigation would never have seen the light of day if the key legal sources corroborating the story had to give up their identity as part of the process. Speaking off the record is often where a lot of those kinds of stories come together.

And the reaction around the world to that story, the thousands of victims that came forward, resoundingly confirmed what people were saying on background.

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

#205

Post by snickerbockers »

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 honestly just don't see any point in these laws because they're all predicated on the people who own the AI's acting in good faith. In a way I actually think they're a net negative because they seem to be giving a false impression that these problems have an obvious solution.

One of the most persistent and also the dumbest opinion I keep seeing both among laymen and people who really ought to know better is that we can solve the deepfake problem by mandating digital watermarks on generated content.

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

#206

Post by orwin »

charcircuit wrote: post #150
orwin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't care about that, that wasn't the point, no one truly care about that. I wanted to know if the feeling of reading meandering writing that can't go to the point when reading AI-generated content was only mine, or if other people who "wiki walk" a lot did the same on Grokipedia (basically spend hours clicking on links and reading random pages). I didn't manage to do it because the writing was too "bad" for me (and i was taken by wiki walk on wookiepedia once, so my tolerance is high). I just wanted to know if it was shared. Did you wiki walk on grokipedia, or do you just use it for "controversial subjects"?

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

#207

Post by razingeden »

cheschire wrote: post #42
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.

Yeah it’s like that episode of schoolhouse rock about how a bill becomes a law now takes place in squid games.

>But I wonder who that sad little scrap of 8,523 pieces of paper is?

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

#208

Post by charcircuit »

_blk wrote: post #170
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.

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

Just because you doing notice that it is not working properly, that doesn't mean you haven't broken anything.

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

#209

Post by dweekly »

staticautomatic wrote: post #143
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?

Yay, I'd love to have your help!

1) Anyone can join the W3C group; you don't need to be a formal member of W3C!

2) What's dumb about the proposal itself? How could it better achieve its goals?

3) You can see some dialogue at https://github.com/WICG/proposals/issues/261 - what resonates and doesn't in the feedback and critique?

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

#210

Post by layer8 »

terminalshort wrote: post #135
layer8 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's government censorship and it not allowed here, unlike the EU. As for plagiarism, every single major news outlet is guilty of it in basically every single article. Have you ever seen the NYT cite a source?

You’re still allowed to say virtually anything you want if you make it clear that it’s an opinion and not news reporting.

Not citing sources doesn’t imply plagiarism, as long as you don’t misrepresent someone else’s research as your own (such as in an academic paper). Giving an account of news that you heard elsewhere in your own words isn’t plagiarism. The hurdles for plagiarism are generally relatively high.

Post reply on HN