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

51–60 of 254 posts

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

#51

Post by crimsonsupe »

raincole wrote: post #29
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'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.

> 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 still make mistakes, the idea that you can just ban AI from certain settings is a fantasy because there’s no technical way to actually guarantee enforcement.

You’re essentially passing laws that only apply to people who volunteer to follow them, because once someone decides to hide their AI use, you won't be able to prove it anyway.

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

#52

Post by direwolf20 »

consp wrote: post #47
layer8 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU ePrivacy directive isn’t about disclaimers.

The problem is people believe it is. People believe the advertisement industry narrative they are force to show the insane screens and have to make it difficult. Yet they are not, and a reject all must be as easy as accept all (and "legitimate reasons" do not exist, they are either allowed uses and you don't have to ask or they are not).

Manufacturers also have the choice to avoid carcinogens but they don't.

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

#53

Post by songodongo »

crimsonsupe wrote: post #51
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.

> 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…

And you can easily prompt your way out of the typical LLM style. “Written in the style of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road”

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

#54

Post by codewench »

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.

How is that useless? You adding the warning tells me everything I need to know.

Either you generated it with AI, in which case I can happily skip it, or you _don't know_ if AI was used, in which case you clearly don't care about what you produce, and I can skip it.

The only concern then is people who use AI and don't apply this warning, but given how easy it is to identify AI generated materials you just have to have a good '1-strike' rule and be judicious with the ban hammer.

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

#56

Post by SkyBelow »

xnorswap wrote: post #13
Llamamoe wrote: post #4

Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.

That could do more harm than good. Like how California's bylaw about cancer warnings are useless because it makes it look like everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer, which in turn makes people just ignore and tune-out the warnings because they're not actually delivering signal-to-noise. This in turn harms people when they think, "How bad can tobacco be? Even my Aloe Vera plant has a warning l…

It is worse, even less than useless. With the California case, there is very little go gain by lying and not putting a sticker on items that should have one. With AI generated content, as the models get to the point we can't tell anymore if it is fake, there are plenty of reasons to pass off a fake as real, and conditioning people to expect an AI warning will make them more likely to fall for content that ignores this law and doesn't label itself.

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

xnorswap wrote: post #13
Llamamoe wrote: post #4

Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.

That could do more harm than good. Like how California's bylaw about cancer warnings are useless because it makes it look like everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer, which in turn makes people just ignore and tune-out the warnings because they're not actually delivering signal-to-noise. This in turn harms people when they think, "How bad can tobacco be? Even my Aloe Vera plant has a warning l…

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by reliabilityguy »

Llamamoe wrote: post #4

Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.

How do we know what’s AI-generated vs. sloppy human work? Of course in some situations it is obvious (e.g., video), but text? Audio?

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

#59

Post by SkyBelow »

codewench wrote: post #54
em500 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How is that useless? You adding the warning tells me everything I need to know. Either you generated it with AI, in which case I can happily skip it, or you _don't know_ if AI was used, in which case you clearly don't care about what you produce, and I can skip it. The only concern then is people who use AI and don't apply this warning, but given how easy it is to identify AI generated materials you just have to have…

Because you have to be able to prove it wasn't AI when the law is tested, and keeping records and proof you didn't use AI is going to be really difficult, if at all possible. For little people having fun, unless you poke the wrong bear, it won't matter. But for companies who are constantly the target of lawsuits, expect there to be a new field of unlabeled AI trolling comparable to patent trolling or similar.

We already see this with the California label, it get's applied to things that don't cause cancer because putting the label on is much cheaper than going through to the process to prove that some random thing doesn't cause cancer.

If the government showed up and claimed your comment was AI generated and you had to prove otherwise, how would you?

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN