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

71–80 of 254 posts

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

#71

Post by delaminator »

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…

C2PA-enabled cameras (Sony Alpha range, Leica, and the Google Pixel 10) sign the digital images they record.

So legislators, should they so choose, could demand source material be recorded on C2PA enabled cameras and produce the original recordings on demand.

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

#73

Post by vasco »

layer8 wrote: post #32
vasco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~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.

I agree with that the most. That's why I added the bit about humans. In the end if what you're writing is not sourced properly or too biased it shouldn't matter if AI is involved or not. The truth is more the thing that matters with news.

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

#74

Post by RobotToaster »

layer8 wrote: post #32
vasco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~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.

That would bankrupt every news organisation in the USA.

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

#75

Post by 6LLvveMx2koXfwn »

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…

> You’re essentially passing laws that only apply to people who volunteer to follow them . .

Like every law passed forever (not quite but you get the picture!) [1]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

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

#76

Post by mothballed »

ddtaylor wrote: post #11

Oregon kind of already has this they just don't enforce their laws.

Oregon and New York both are still trying to work their way up the 'rule of law' pyramid past the base level of stopping fetnanyl and meth heads from robbing convenience stores and parked cars. Every moment spent on enforcing AI disclaimers instead is an affront to the populace.

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

#77

Post by mothballed »

layer8 wrote: post #32
vasco wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~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.

If a news person in the USA publishes something that's actually criminal, the the corporate veil can be pierced. If the editor printed CSAM they would be in prison lickity split. Unless they have close connections to the executive.

Most regulations around disclaimers in the USA are just civil and the corporate veil won't be pierced.

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

#78

Post by sidrag22 »

cmiles8 wrote: post #55

This is a good idea. Although most AI written content is also stroll pretty obvious. It consistently has a certain feel that just seems off.

Maybe for articles... and people who seem to think copy pasting a basic gpt response to generate a linkedin lunatic style post is passing anyone familiar with AI generated responses sniff tests...

But i wouldn't be surprised to see a massive % of comments that I don't instantly attribute to AI, actually being AI. RP prompts are just so powerful, and even my local mediocore model coulda wrote 100 comments in the time its taking me to write this one.

all humans are pattern seeking to a fault, the amount of people even in this community that will not consider something AI generated just because it doesnt have emdashes or emojis is probably pretty high.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by sekai »

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.

> 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?

Post reply on HN