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

91–100 of 254 posts

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

#91

Post by chrisjj »

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…

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

By that token bans on illegal drugs are fantasy. Whereas in fact, enforcement doesn't need to be guaranteed to be effective.

There may be little technical means to distinguish at the moment. But could that have something to do with lack of motivation? Let's see how many "AI" $$$ suddenly become available to this once this law provides the incentive.

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

#92

Post by hellojesus »

rasjani wrote: post #8

Finnish public broadcasting company YLE has same rule. Even if they do cleanups of still images, they need to mark that article has AI generated content.

Do they find that fewer people read articles that were written by humans but have that label slapped on for the photo vs a baseline?

If not: I suspect fewer people may care and so what's the point of the label?

If so: why would they continue to use Ai solely to clean up photos?

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

#93

Post by driverdan »

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.

What does that mean though? Photos taken using mobile camera apps are processed using AI. Many Photoshop tools now use AI.

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

#94

Post by chrisjj »

sumeno wrote: post #82
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.

Who are the honest players generating AI slop articles

The ones honestly labelling their articles e.g. "AI can make mistakes". Full marks to Google web search for leading the way!

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

#95

Post by hermannj314 »

sekai wrote: post #80
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?

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.

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

#96

Post by NietTim »

New York also wants 3d printers to know when they are printing gun parts. Sure these initiatives have good meanings but also would only work when "the good ones" chose to label their content as AI generated/gun parts. There will _never_ be a 100% sure fire, non invasive, way to know if an article was (in part) AI generated or not, the same way that "2d printers" (lol) refuse to photo copy fiat currency, to circle back to the 3d printer argument.

IMO: it's already too late and effort should instead be focussed on recognition of this and quickly moving on to prevention through education instead of trying to smother it with legislation, it is just not going away.

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

#97

Post by rubyfan »

Balinares wrote: post #86
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…

Don't ding the amusingly scoped animosity, it's very convenient: we get to say stuff like "Sure, our laws may keep us at the mercy of big corps unlike these other people, BUT..." and have a ready rationalization for why our side is actually still superior when you look at it. Imagine what would happen if the populace figured it's getting collectively shafted in a way others may not.

>Imagine what would happen if the populace figured it's getting collectively shafted in a way others may not.

They already believe that and it’s used to keep us fighting each other.

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

#98

Post by chrisjj »

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.

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

I think you're saying "AI" written content having a certain feel that just seems off is obviously "AI" written content.

Yes. But you've know way of knowing that's most. There could be 10x more that we don't detect.

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

#100

Post by Forgeties79 »

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…

The idea that you can just ban drinking and driving is a fantasy because there’s no technical way to actually guarantee enforcement.

I know that sounds ridiculous but it kind of illustrates the problem with your logic. We don’t just write laws that are guaranteed to have 100% compliance and/or 100% successful enforcement. If that were the case, we’d have way fewer laws and little need for courts/a broader judicial system.

The goal is getting most AI companies to comply and making sure that most of those that don’t follow the law face sufficient punishment to discourage them (and others). Additionally, you use that opportunity to undo what damage you can, be it restitution or otherwise for those negatively impacted.

Post reply on HN