221–230 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I bet you’ve taken a shortcut to save less than 1h for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just came across this for the first time. I ordered a precision screw driver kit and it came with a cancer warning on it. I was really taken aback and then learned about this.
Some legislation which sounds good in concept and is well-intended ends up being having little to no positive impact in practice. But it still leaves businesses with ongoing compliance costs/risks, taxpayers footing the bill for an enforcement bureaucracy forever and consumers with either annoying warning interruptions or yet more 'warning message noise'. It's odd that legislators seem largely incapable of learning f…
Most of it is performative law making.
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.
This
I still regularly see job posting with no salary here in nyc. Never heard of any enforcement
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start. Does photoshop fall under this category?
Spell check, autocomplete, grammar editing, A-B tests for bylines and photo use, related stories, viewers also read, tag generation I guess you have to disclose every single item on your new site that does anything like this. Any byte that touches a stochastic process is tainted forever.
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.
Known by the state of cancer to cause California. I do think P65 warnings are pretty useful for the most part jokes aside
In 10-20 years all this AI disclaimer stuff is going to be like 'don't use wikipedia, it could lie!' Status Quo Bias is a real thing, and we are seeing those people in meltdown with the world changing around them. They think avoiding AI, putting disclaimers on it, etc... will matter. But they aren't being rational, they are being emotional. The economic value is too high to stop and the cat is out of the bag with 400…
My dude, Wikipedia is still problematic as a source of information. That isn't the ridiculous comparison you intended it to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Things don’t need to be huge deals to influence behavior or be a net gain. I bet you’ve taken a shortcut to save less than 1h for example.
A saying I've heard is that if the punishment for a crime is financial, then it is only a deterrent for those who lack the means to pay. Small business gets caught doing bad stuff, a $30k fine could mean shutting down. Meta gets caught doing bad stuff, a billion dollar fine is almost a rounding error in their operational expenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
People know what it _should_ mean, but if you say that it’s fine to have an AI editor, then there will be a bunch of people saying something like “my reporting is that x is a story, and my editor, ChatGPT, just tidied that idea up into a full story”. There’s all sorts of hoops people can jump through like that. So you end up putting a banner on all AI, or only penalizing the honest people who follow the distinction t…