It won't work.

Most of the media you see in the near future (if not already) is going to be at least AI assisted. They're going to be overloaded by reports of AI generation not labeled as AI.

I'm also curious, what about AI assisted media? If a company writes a full article, then uses AI to edit it a bit, does that need to be labeled?

Smartphone cameras also do a bunch of image processing that can be classified as AI, by default (some more than others). I wish they'd stop doing that, but I'm sure they won't.

I agree it won't work, albeit for an entirely different reason. There has been a shift towards labelling AI generated or AI assisted content by those who aren't attempting to mislead. Those who are attempting to mislead won't.

As for AI assisted edits, the article is quite clear about the labelling covering AI generated content. If you "hire" the AI as an editor by asking it to check your grammar or point out weak arguments, then do the rewrite yourself, it almost certainly wouldn't be covered. It sounds like it wouldn't be covered if you asked it to apply edits for style either, just be sure to log the changes since it would clearly be in an AI's voice.

It could turn out like the California “chemicals present that could cause cancer” that are ubiquitous in California, and therefore not useful as signal.

Speed limits work nonetheless. A few hefty fines and most of it will stop.

> It won't work.

Maybe. But the rest of your post doesn't have anything to back this up.

> I'm also curious, what about AI assisted media? If a company writes a full article, then uses AI to edit it a bit, does that need to be labeled?

Why would it? The threat is mass generation of articles without any human oversights, and realistic looking images claiming occurrence of events that never hapened. Nobody cares about an AI typo and stylecheck.

I would hope so.