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

211–220 of 254 posts

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

#211

Post by toofy »

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…

> SAFE for Kids Act [pending] (restricts algorithmic feeds for minors).

i personally would love to see something like this but changed a little:

for every user (not just minors) require a toggle: upfront, not buried, always in your face toggle to turn off algorithmic feeds, where you’ll only see posts from people you follow, in the order in which they post it. again, no dark patterns, once a user toggles to a non-algorithmic feeds, it should stick.

this would do a lot to restore trust. i don’t really use the big social medias much any more, but when i did i can not tell you how many posts i missed because the algorithms are kinda dumb af. like i missed friends anniversary celebrations, events that were right up my alley, community projects, etc… because the algorithms didn’t think the posts announcing the events would be addictive enough for me.

no need to force it “for the kids” when they can just give everyone the choice.

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

#212

Post by shimman »

terminalshort wrote: post #138
NicuCalcea wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So every time a reporter researches something and does a Google search and Gemini results pop up now AI use has to be added to the methodology section and basically 100% of all articles have the "AI use" label attached.

Yes because it would tell me immediately that the reporter can be safely ignored.

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

#214

Post by ddtaylor »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #186
ddtaylor wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That personal freedom comes at a cost to the safety of your family.

Property crime rates skyrocketed.

Most stores have to have locked port access.

Go walk around Salem or Portland and access some public places. It's not safe to do so and anyone can verify that in seconds.

I have actually a much better understanding now in DC of how people can actually be compassionate. What Oregon is doing is not compassion, it's actively causing harm and destroying thirty thousand lives as we speak right now and climbing. Those are real people dying on your sidewalks in front of you. Someone else's daughter or son.

The environment has been distorted and the problem is bigger now than the appetite for compassion.

I hope you stay safe.

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

#215

Post by squeaky-clean »

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…

For Forty News I don't think the "need sources" requests are for contents of the news stories. It's about where did these stories come from? How can I know these were ever actually published. As it currently is, I can't tell if these were pulled from real newspapers or AI generated to write a simulation of what the story might have been like if it were condensed to 10 sentences.

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

#216

Post by hsuduebc2 »

I don’t know whether it’s ignorance of the subject or a sense of exceptionalism, but it’s striking that politicians who write this kind of legislation don’t spend even five minutes checking whether such a law is actually enforceable. I would genuinely like to see how they plan to enforce this in practice. At best, it seems like it could only work through reports and multiple witness statements.

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

#217

Post by hsuduebc2 »

wwfn wrote: post #68
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…

> passing laws that only apply to people who volunteer to follow them That's a concerning lens to view regulations. Obviously true, but for all laws. Regulations don't apply to only to what would be immediately observable offenses. There are lots of bad actors and instances where the law is ignored because getting caught isn't likely. Those are conspiracies! They get harder to maintain with more people involved and t…

But most regulations are, and can be, enforced because the perpetrator can simply be caught. That’s the difference. This is not enforceable in any meaningful way. The only way it could change anything would be through whistleblowers, for example someone inside a major outlet like the New York Times reporting to authorities that AI was being used. On the contrary, if you systematically create laws that are, by their nature, impossible to enforce, you weaken trust in the law itself by turning it into something that exists more on paper than in reality.

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

#218

Post by charcircuit »

mcpar-land wrote: post #180
charcircuit wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is less bias being able to have an AI measure who is being productive and who isn't. Getting signal from AI when measuring performance to know when to fire people will be a valuable signal.

Do you think that LLMs are not biased / less biased than humans?

They have their own biases, but it's consistent.

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

#219

Post by charcircuit »

orwin wrote: post #206
charcircuit wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (a…

I don't know what wiki walk is. I don't often use grokipedia since I can just prompt an LLM directly, which may in turn extract information from grokipedia.

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

#220

Post by abustamam »

Retric wrote: post #188
ninalanyon wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what's the point? If neither party is really affected by a penalty (no diacernible benefit or loss to either), then is it all just performative?

Maybe I just answered my own question.

Post reply on HN