Right, which is why all we're going to get it a label saying that AI was used (or maybe landlords will try to fly through on the label of "virtually staged" that they've been using).

Existing law doesn't have the authority to ban all AI images as inherently deceptive, and DCWP isn't going to be spending a bunch of time prosecuting individual images.

I agree with Mamdani that these images are often deceptive and misleading and sifting through the bullshit is annoying (and was annoying with virtually staged images too). It's just not going to go anywhere. The energy would be better spent on zoning and building code reform.

▲ evil-olive 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The energy would be better spent on zoning and building code reform.

you've constructed a false dichotomy here.

the government of a city with ~8 million people is capable of doing multiple things at the same time.

▲ enraged_camel 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I take it you are a lawyer specializing in NY real estate law, then? Would be interesting to hear a more detailed analysis if so.

▲ valleyer 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The law applies to everyone, so it's reasonable for everyone to try to understand it, not just attorneys.

Similarly, it's fine for people to have opinions on food, dental hygiene, and the tax code without being a chef, a dentist, and an accountant.

▲ rapidaneurism 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I thought it was illegal in new york (and probably the rest of the us) to give legal advice if not a lawyer.

And in my understanding interpreting the law as opposed to just reciting it constitutes legal advice.

	▲	valleyer 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, merely analyzing or discussing the law generally does not constitute the practice of law. If it did, plenty of newspaper articles, law review journals (often written by law students), non-attorney legal aid, and legal pamphlets would be prohibited. If you want something more concrete, I googled it, and in New York, there appears to have been a case New York County Lawyers’ Association v. Dacey, in which Dacey wrote a book "How to Avoid Probate!", and the NYCA accepted a dissent in a lower court, stating in part: `Does the writing, publication, advertising, sale and distribution of "How To Avoid Probate!" constitute the unauthorized practice of law within the meaning of subdivision B of section 750? It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which purports to say what the law is amounts to legal practice. And the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be accepted by a particular reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this.` and later humorously quoting: `"[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions" (Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 270)` https://accessiblelaw.org/Disclaimer.html
	▲	kennywinker 12 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Pot, meet kettle.

▲ Eridrus 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am honestly so surprised that everyone on HN is so naive that they take political statements like this at face value.

Politicians routinely say they will do things they do not have the authority to do, and it's often very important to understanding what will actually happen to have some understanding of what authorities are available to them, or at the very least ask Google/LLMs about it.

	▲	enraged_camel 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ah, so you aren’t a lawyer then.
	▲	horusborus 15 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]