| ▲ | estearum 18 hours ago |
| What? Is your claim that every photo will be labeled as AI-modified, or that people won't label AI-modified images? If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. The entire issue is that the platforms are already inundated with misleading, unlabeled AI-modified images. |
|
| ▲ | wmf 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Every photo will be AI-enhanced and correctly labeled as such. Just like every Web site has a cookie warning. |
| |
| ▲ | Gigachad 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Analysis on steam shows not all games have the AI tag, and games which do sell measurably worse. | |
| ▲ | 10000truths 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If that ends up happening, then the next step would be for the platform to derank listings that contain AI-enhanced photos, to set the proper incentive. That would be up to the platform to enforce, though. | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What incentive does the platform have to do this? Ostensibly, the agents/landlords are the ones who pay, so you're asking the platform to bite the hands that feed it. | |
| ▲ | ryukoposting 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not "if." My mother-in-law is a realtor. She has a storage locker full of furniture for staging. I guarantee that the monthly cost of that locker, plus the cost of moving the furniture in and out of every property is an order of magnitude more expensive than whatever tool is doing the AI fake staging. The cost savings are too attractive. | | | |
| ▲ | lostmsu 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If platform cared they would have fixed problems already. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jdiff 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This site doesn't. Many don't. | | |
| ▲ | Gigachad 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The sites that do have cookie banners tend to be the unbearable websites with 500 adverts, a full screen modal asking to sign up to the newsletter and redirecting you 30 times because you scrolled and touched the wrong element. |
| |
| ▲ | PeterHolzwarth 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | so therefore don't create laws or pass city ordinances? I don't understand your logic. | | |
| ▲ | wmf 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you want a particular outcome, legislate that outcome. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ElProlactin 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. It's very unlikely to be trivial though because the state typically lacks the resources required to enforce things like this at scale. You'll need to find violators, meet a burden of proof that they violated the law, notify them, give them the right to defend themsleves against the allegation, etc. They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens. |
| |
| ▲ | Calavar 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens. The point of regulation isn't for the state to turn a profit. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that regulations that drive a monetary profit for the state are generally bad because they create a perverse incentive. For example, municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue. | | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You're right that the point of regulation isn't to turn a "profit" but the laws of economics always apply. If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. You could create a private right of action for this, but that is its own bag of worms. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. Seems empirically false given e.g. the immense investment we make in counter-drug enforcement. |
| |
| ▲ | oblio 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue. I don't know about the US because the US is weird, but: * at 30kmph the rate of fatalities in case of a car hitting a pedestrian is basically 0%, at 50kmph I think it's 5% or more * at 30kmph collisions are much easier to avoid due to the increased reaction time and the decreased braking distance (I don't remember the exact numbers) * at 30kmph you can hold a conversation at normal speech levels next to a moderately busy road, at 50kmph you will have to shout (and not even notice it due to the high ambient noise) Etc. |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1. The point of laws is not to turn a profit on their enforcement 2. The burden of proof/right to defense/notifications etc are all quite a lot easier for licensed entities like real estate brokers – that's kind of the entire point of licensure |
|
