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

31–40 of 254 posts

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

#31

Post by nosianu »

charcircuit wrote: post #19

So literally every article will be labeled as AI assisted and it will be meaningless. >The use of generative artificial intelligence systems shall not result in: (i) discharge, displacement or loss of position Being able to fire employees is a great use of AI and should not be restricted. > or (ii) transfer of existing duties and functions previously performed by employees or worker Is this saying you can't replace a…

> So literally every article will be labeled as AI assisted and it will be meaningless.

The web novel website RoyalRoad has two different tags that stories can/should add: AI-Assisted and AI-Generated.

Their policy: https://www.royalroad.com/blog/57/royal-road-ai-text-policy

> In this policy, we are going to separate the use of AI for text, into 3 categories: General Assistive Technologies, AI-Assisted, AI-Generated

The first category does not require tagging the story, only the other two do.

> The new tags are as such:

> AI-Assisted: The author has used an AI tool for editing or proofreading. The story thus reflects the author’s creativity and structure, but it may use the AI’s voice and tone. There may be some negligible amount of snippets generated by AI.

> AI-Generated: The story was generated using an AI tool; the author prompted and directed the process, and edited the result.

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

#32

Post by layer8 »

vasco wrote: post #22
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…

~Everything will use AI at some point. This is like requiring a disclaimer for using Javascript back when it was introduced. It's unfortunate but I think ultimately a losing battle. Plus if you want to mandate it, hidden markers (stenography) to verify which model generated the text so people can independently verify if articles were written by humans (emitted directly by the model) is probably the only feasible way.…

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.

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

#33

Post by jacquesm »

VMG wrote: post #18

Step 2: outlets slap this disclaimer on all content, regardless of AI usage, making it useless Step 3: regulator prohibits putting label on content that is not AI generated Step 4: outlets make sure to use AI for all content Let's call it the "Sesame effect"

Or

Step 1: those outlets that actually do the work see an increase in subscribers.

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

#34

Post by nicoburns »

charcircuit wrote: post #19

So literally every article will be labeled as AI assisted and it will be meaningless. >The use of generative artificial intelligence systems shall not result in: (i) discharge, displacement or loss of position Being able to fire employees is a great use of AI and should not be restricted. > or (ii) transfer of existing duties and functions previously performed by employees or worker Is this saying you can't replace a…

> So literally every article will be labeled as AI assisted and it will be meaningless.

That at might at least offer an opportunity for a news source to compete on not being AI-generated. I would personally be willing to pay for information sources that exclude AI-generated content.

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

#35

Post by em500 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #15

I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form. Unless it suddenly becomes a premium feature to have 100% human written articles, but are people really going to pay for that? > substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one. This…

> I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form.

This is very predictably what's going to happen, and it will be just as useless as Prop 65 or the EU cookie laws or any other mandatory disclaimers.

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

#36

Post by mikkupikku »

wiseowise wrote: post #12
PlatoIsADisease wrote: post #2

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…

> But they aren't being rational, they are being emotional. When your mind is so fried on slop that you start to write like one. > The economic value is too high to stop and the cat is out of the bag with 400B models on local computers. Look at all this value created like *checks notes* scam ads, apps that undress women and teenage girls, tech bros jerking each other off on twitter, flooding open source with tsunami…

You may not like it, but this is what peak economic performance looks like.

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

#37

Post by layer8 »

em500 wrote: post #35
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #15

I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form. Unless it suddenly becomes a premium feature to have 100% human written articles, but are people really going to pay for that? > substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one. This…

> I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form. This is very predictably what's going to happen, and it will be just as useless as Prop 65 or the EU cookie laws or any other mandatory disclaimers.

The EU ePrivacy directive isn’t about disclaimers.

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

#38

Post by orwin »

VMG wrote: post #18

Step 2: outlets slap this disclaimer on all content, regardless of AI usage, making it useless Step 3: regulator prohibits putting label on content that is not AI generated Step 4: outlets make sure to use AI for all content Let's call it the "Sesame effect"

Alternative timeline

Step 2.5: 'unlike those news outlets, all our work is verified by humans'

Step 3: work as intended.

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

#39

Post by mold_aid »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #15

I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form. Unless it suddenly becomes a premium feature to have 100% human written articles, but are people really going to pay for that? > substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one. This…

I think a lot of people are asking the question around many digital services; I'm pretty sure in areas like education and media "no AI!" is going to be something that rich people look for, sure.

Editing and proofreading are "substantial" elements of authorship. Hope these laws include criminal penalties for "it's not just this - it's that!" "we seized Tony Dokoupil's computer and found Grammarly installed," right, straight to jail

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

#40

Post by orwin »

charcircuit wrote: post #17
Llamamoe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI-written articles tend to be far more regurgitative, lower in value, and easier to ghostwrite with intent to manipulate the narrative. Economic value or not, AI-generated content should be labeled, and trying to pass it as human-written should be illegal, regardless of how used to AI content people do or don't become.

That is low quality articles in general. Have you never seen how hundreds of news sites will regurgitate the same story of another. This was happening long before AI. High quality AI written articles will still be high value.

Did you go on grokipedia at release? I still sometimes loose myself reading stuff on Wikipedia, I guarantee you that this can't happen on grok, so much noise between facts it's hard to enjoy.
Post reply on HN