> 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.

None of those bills/laws involve legislating publishing though. This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue, so it going to be tougher to enforce and keep from getting overturned in the courts. The question here are what are the limits the government can have on what a company publishes, regardless of how the content is generated.

IMO, It’s a much tougher problem (legally) than protecting actors from AI infringement on their likeness. AI services are easier to regulate.. published AI generated content, much more difficult.

The article also mentions efforts by news unions of guilds. This might be a more effective mechanism. If a person/union/guild required members to add a tagline in their content/articles, this would have a similar effect - showing what is and what is not AI content without restricting speech.

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.

Ai view from Simmons+simmons is a very good newsletter on the topic of ai regulation https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clptn86e8002...

All video and other contests should have ai stamp as most of the YouTube is AI generated.Almost like memes

~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. But its not like humans are impartial anyway already when writing news so I don't even see the point of that.

> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh.

I think the reason is that most people don't believe, at least on sufficiently long times scales, that legacy states are likely to be able to shape AI (or for that matter, the internet). The legitimacy of the US state appears to be in a sort of free-fall, for example.

It takes a long time to fully (or even mostly) understand the various machinations of legislative action (let alone executive discretion, and then judicial interpretation), and in that time, regardless of what happens in various capitol buildings, the tests pass and the code runs - for better and for worse.

And even amidst a diversity of views/assessments of the future of the state, there seems to be near consensus regarding the underlying impetus: obviously humans and AI are distinct, and hearing the news from a human, particular a human with a strong web-of-trust connection in your local society, is massively more credible. What's not clear is whether states have a role to play in lending clarity to the situation, or whether that will happen of the internet's accord.

A common reaction I get to https://forty.news is that the stories “need sources” which I always find funny. I don’t hear the same demand of sources from every other news outlet (I find it extra weird because all FN’s stories are 40 years old, simple to verify, and can’t push an agenda the same way).

Totally agree with you: all newspapers should cite sources. What’s silly to me is how selectively people care—big outlets get to hand-wave the “trust me” part even when a piece is basically a lightly rewritten press release, thinly sourced, or reflecting someone’s incentives more than reality.

Just like we want to know where the food we eat comes from, we want to know where the information comes from. Of course there's the limit of journalists having to keep their sources secret in many cases. But original publisher I think should be possible.

There's already such a label: "exclusive!"

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 label".

Keep it to generated news articles, and people might pay more attention to them.

Don't let the AI lobby insist on anything that's touched an LLM getting labelled, because if it gets slapped on anything that's even passed through a spell-checker or saved in Notepad ( somehow this is contaminated, lol ), then it'll become a useless warning.

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

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?

Where we put the line within AI-generate vs AI-assisted (aka Photoshop and other tools)?

> 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?

Fully agreed.

Please no. I don’t want that kind of future. It’s going to be California cancer warnings all over again.

I don’t like AI slop but this kind of legislation does nothing. Look at the low quality garbage that already exists, do we really need another step in the flow to catch if it’s AI?

You legislate these problems away.

Ideally, we would just ban AI content altogether.

How does one get involved?

At least it would be possible to autofilter everything out. Maybe market will somehow make it possible for non-AI content to get some spotlight because of that.

> 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.

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

Let's make this a thing if the law passes.

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.

Or

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

Alternative timeline

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

Step 3: work as intended.

This seems like common sense. I'm running OpenClaw with GLM-4.6V as an experiment. I'm allowing my friends to talk to it using WhatsApp.

Even though it has been instructed to maintain privacy between people who talk to it, it constantly divulges information from private chats, gets confused about who is talking to it, and so on.^ Of course, a stronger model would be less likely to screw up, but this is an intrinsic issue with LLMs that can't be fully solved.

Reporters absolutely should not run an instance of OpenClaw and provide it with information about sources.

^: Just to be clear, the people talking to it understand that they cannot divulge any actual private information to it.

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?

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.

Obviously people mean LLMs these days when talking about AI. Don't be obtuse.

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.

> 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.

The smell of Harbor Freight stores from before prop 65 compared to now indicates that it did work.

> It also doesn't work to penalize fraudulent warnings

How would you classify fraudulent warnings? "Hey chatgpt, does this text look good to you? LGTM. Ship it".

I don't think that's true. The 'this battle is already over' attitude is the most defeatist strategy possible. It's effectively complying in advance, rolling over before you've attempted to create the best possible outcome.

With that attitude we would not have voting, human rights (for what they're worth these days), unions, a prohibition on slavery and tons of other things we take for granted every day.

I'm sure AI has its place but to see it assume the guise of human output without any kind of differentiating factor has so many downsides that it is worth trying to curb the excesses. And news articles in particular should be free from hallucinations because they in turn will cause others to pass those on. Obviously with the quality of some publications you could argue that that is an improvement but it wasn't always so and a free and capable press is a precious thing.

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.

Current AI use is heavily subsidized; we will see how much value there actually is when it comes time to monetize.

Emotional my ass, just have websites and social media give me a filter to hide AI stuff , I can't enjoy a video , post or story anymore since I always doubt it is real, if I am part of a minority this filter should not hit the budget of companies and would encourage real people generated content if we are larger then a dozen people.

> 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 of low quality slop, inflating chip prices, thousands are cut off in cost savings and dozens more.

Cat is out of the bag for sure.

> 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.

> 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.

> Being able to fire employees is a great use of AI and should not be restricted.

Can you elaborate on this?

How would you feel if an AI hallucinated and fired you from your job?

objects in the mirror are closer than they appear.