Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I'm getting what is the point here. As I said, legal system rarely deals with 100%, it's not a requirement to make a law enforceable. Not telling the particular law is good or bad, just that "you can't certainly distiguish between human and LLM output" is not a strong argument against it. The conflict emerges when e.g. you are attributed words you have never said, or presented in a fake video, and there ways to argue about such cases in court other than just trying to analyze bit-by-bit, or doing histograms.

▲

Xelbair 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Simple - you need to assign blame, and you need to do it in a fair way.

Any assingement of blame of using unauthorized LLM generated content could be shifted to external contractor(preferably outside of EU's jurisdiction) where you yourself had no awareness of it. Contract of course explicitly forbids LLM content and requires labeling.

This is and extremely basic loophole that gives enough plausible deniability to any sane publisher/content farm.

Now you need to prove they were aware of LLM content being generated, as they cannot rely on LLM content detection methods due to high amount of false positives.

Even easier if you publish content from people writing under pseudonyms/anonymously. It devolves into he said she said kind of situation, and burden of proof is on accusers side.

Basically depending on enforcement this system either:

- only punishes small players that cannot afford to setup such chain

- is used as an arbitrary excuse to shut some outlets if the system is corrupt

	▲	broken-kebab 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks, now I see. No, that's not how it works. If a legislation designates you as responsible, you can outsource compliance implementation, but not the responsibility itself. Banks can hire external companies to verify operations wrt embargoes, but if relevant authority found a violation, the most probable outcome will be penalty againt bank, not contractor. Moreover, at any time a bank may be ordered to demonstrate that they organized the whole process in such a way that they have substantial reasons to believe it works as required according to the current best practices (whatever it means), and be fined if they don't. Laws are quite often stupid, but placing blame is a honed process, and when the letters say they will kick your balls if anything, it's not easy to avoid this. Possibly we even will see publishers overrecation (as it observed in banking where clients or operations often blocked for no strong reason) and human content will be marked as LLM-produced, or "possibly LLM-produced" if they are given such option. Your concern about disadvantage to smaller players is not without reason as legally complicated environments often have such effect, but to be sure one needs to study the whole thing deeper. E.g. there could be exceptions for individuals/small companies.