… or the sesame seed labeling law that resulted in sesame seeds being added to everything.

https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...

Meta made $60B in Q4 2025. A one-time $1.4B fine, 20 years after enactment, is not "getting hammered".

That's even worse, because then it's not really a law, it's a license for political persecution of anyone disfavored by whoever happens to be in power.

> Texas' sat on its biometric data act quite quietly then hammered meta with a $1.4B settlement 20 years after the bill's enactment.

Sounds like ignoring it worked fine for them then.

That sounds like it will be in the courts for ages before Facebook wins on selective prosecution.

> 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.

Sure they can be enforced. Your comment seems to be based on the idea of detecting AI writing from the output. But you can enforce this law based on the way content is created. The same way you can enforce food safety laws from conditions of the kitchen, not the taste of the food. Child labor laws can be enforced. And so on.

Unless you're trying to tell me that writers won't report on their business that's trying to replace them with AI.

> 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

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

> passing laws that only apply to people who volunteer to follow them

That's a concerning lens to view regulations. Obviously true, but for all laws. Regulations don't apply to only to what would be immediately observable offenses.

There are lots of bad actors and instances where the law is ignored because getting caught isn't likely. Those are conspiracies! They get harder to maintain with more people involved and the reason for whistle-blower protections.

VW's Dieselgate[1] comes to mind albeit via measurable discrepancy. Maybe Enron or WorldCom (via Cynthia Cooper) [2] is a better example.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCI_Inc.#Accounting_scandals

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.

Indistinguishable, no. Not these tools.

Without emotion, without love and hate and fear and struggle, only a pale imitation of the human voice is or will be possible.

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.

Highly selective enforcement along partisan lines to suppress dissent. Government officials forcing you to prove that your post is not AI generated if they don't like it. Those same officials claiming that it is AI generated regardless of the facts on the ground to have it removed and you arrested.

Worst case? Armed officers entering your home without warrant, taking away your GPU card?

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

Because compelled speech is an insult to free speech just as censored speech is.

It is when a human publishes it. Which is why they're also liable for it.

That's government censorship and it not allowed here, unlike the EU. As for plagiarism, every single major news outlet is guilty of it in basically every single article. Have you ever seen the NYT cite a source?

That would bankrupt every news organisation in the USA.

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.

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.