~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.

▲

layer8 7 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	terminalshort 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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?
	▲	RobotToaster 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		That would bankrupt every news organisation in the USA.
	▲	mothballed 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	vasco 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.