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

241–250 of 254 posts

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

#241

Post by NicuCalcea »

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.

If they use the information from the AI summary without checking, then definitely, they'd be a rubbish reporter.

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

#242

Post by subscribed »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #197
subscribed wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me. There are four I want. All very safe. I always wanted to try specific two, but first cannot be had in the safest form because of the specific precursor ban, and all of them suffer from an insane (to me) risk of adulteration. In twenty minutes I could probably find 10 "reputable" shops/markets, but still with 0 guarantee I won't get the specific thing laced with something for strength. Even if I wanted pot (I don'…

I’m absolutely positive that someone in your 1st degree or 2nd degree social circle can get you weed if you wanted it.

I don't want a random weed. I can easily get it myself on the street (there are several places with the distinct smell), and I know at least 3-4 people who I know smoke.

But I want safe (not pcp/fentanyl sprinkled) and sane (not engineered for a 'kick').

I don't know anyone who's a cultivator themselves :)

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

#243

Post by oblio »

mothballed wrote: post #202
fwip wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I will never understand free speech absolutists.

Ads should be marked, ingredients and components should be listed.

What possible reason would there be for a viewer/customer to not be allowed to find out such obvious info?

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

#244

Post by AngryData »

ls612 wrote: post #240
Ajedi32 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's even worse, because then it's not really a law, it's a license for political persecution of anyone disfavored by whoever happens to be in power.

Every law is like this. Only fools and schoolchildren believe that the rule of law means anything other than selective punishment of those who displease the ruling class.

I agree that is how it currently is in the US, but I don't believe it is universally true or that nothing can be done to change it if enough people resisted.

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

#245

Post by AngryData »

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, just the same as I would expect an encyclopedia reference called out for not being a primary source of a declared fact.

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

#246

Post by ls612 »

AngryData wrote: post #244
ls612 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every law is like this. Only fools and schoolchildren believe that the rule of law means anything other than selective punishment of those who displease the ruling class.

I agree that is how it currently is in the US, but I don't believe it is universally true or that nothing can be done to change it if enough people resisted.

My statement has nothing to do with contemporary politics and is not unique in the slightest to the US. For an example you are likely sympathetic to, consider the experience of Pavel Durov since late 2024.

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

#247

Post by account42 »

nemo wrote: post #177
Wistar wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As someone who is allergic to sesame, that is insanely annoying.

I don't like the opposite any more though, i.e. commercial food being effectively limited to the lowest common denominator of allergens and other dietary as well as religious restrictions. I see that happen a lot more than this one example and it doesn't even need any laws to cause it.

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

#248

Post by account42 »

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.

I'm fine with that. I want neither AI-hallucinated stories nor AI-expanded fluff. If it's not worth it for a real human editor it's probably not worth reading.

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

#249

Post by account42 »

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.

But that is because the requirement is binary - warning vs. no warning. This problem doesn't happen if the requirement is to disclose what was used although it could still lead to other issues.

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

#250

Post by account42 »

charcircuit wrote: post #208
_blk wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don't notice then it was probably not something you considered essential. Breaking the tracking of you and your personal information is kind of the point.
Post reply on HN