8 ms·

I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Maybe there's an apathy and exhaustion to it. But if you're developing AI stuff, you ne

I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Maybe there's an apathy and exhaustion to it. But if you're developing AI stuff, you need to keep on top of this. This is a pretty pivotal moment. NY has been busy with RAISE (frontier AI safety protocols, audits, incident reporting), S8420A (must disclose AI-generated performers in ads), GBL Article 47 (crisis detection & disclaimers for AI chatbots), S7676B (protects performers from unauthorized AI likenesses), NYC LL144 (bias audits for AI hiring tools), SAFE for Kids Act [pending] (restricts algorithmic feeds for minors). At least three of those are relevant even if your app only _serves_ people in NY. It doesn't matter where you're based. That's just one US state's laws on AI. It's kinda funny the oft-held animosity towards EU's heavy-handed regulations when navigating US state law is a complete minefield of its own.

vasco 8mo ago
~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 8mo ago
  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.
  - vasco 8mo ago
    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.
  - RobotToaster 8mo ago
    That would bankrupt every news organisation in the USA.
    - _blk 8mo ago
      Seems like a good idea then
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    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.
  - terminalshort 8mo ago
    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?
    - layer8 8mo ago
      You’re still allowed to say virtually anything you want if you make it clear that it’s an opinion and not news reporting. Not citing sources doesn’t imply plagiarism, as long as you don’t misrepresent someone else’s research as your own (such as in an academic paper). Giving an account of news that you heard elsewhere in your own words isn’t plagiarism. The hurdles for plagiarism are generally relatively high.
jMyles 8mo ago
> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. I think the reason is that most people don't believe, at least on sufficiently long times scales, that legacy states are likely to be able to shape AI (or for that matter, the internet). The legitimacy of the US state appears to be in a sort of free-fall, for example. It takes a long time to fully (or even mostly) understand the various machinations of legislative action (let alone executive discretion, and then judicial interpretation), and in that time, regardless of what happens in various capitol buildings, the tests pass and the code runs - for better and for worse. And even amidst a diversity of views/assessments of the future of the state, there seems to be near consensus regarding the underlying impetus: obviously humans and AI are distinct, and hearing the news from a human, particular a human with a strong web-of-trust connection in your local society, is massively more credible. What's not clear is whether states have a role to play in lending clarity to the situation, or whether that will happen of the internet's accord.
raincole 8mo ago
> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. But I actually believe they'll be. In the worst way possible: honest players will be punished disproportionally.
- cheschire 8mo ago
  Yeah it’s like that episode of schoolhouse rock about how a bill becomes a law now takes place in squid games.
  - razingeden 8mo ago
    >But I wonder who that sad little scrap of 8,523 pieces of paper is?
- just_once 8mo ago
  What does that look like? Can you describe your worst case scenario?
  - amelius 8mo ago
    Worst case? Armed officers entering your home without warrant, taking away your GPU card?
    - just_once 8mo ago
      They can do that anyway. What does that have to do with the content of the proposed law?
  - jandrese 8mo ago
    Highly selective enforcement along partisan lines to suppress dissent. Government officials forcing you to prove that your post is not AI generated if they don't like it. Those same officials claiming that it is AI generated regardless of the facts on the ground to have it removed and you arrested.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
totetsu 8mo ago
Ai view from Simmons+simmons is a very good newsletter on the topic of ai regulation https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clptn86e8002ou2ewlci4y2qx/ai-view https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clptn86e8002...
Balinares 8mo ago
Don't ding the amusingly scoped animosity, it's very convenient: we get to say stuff like "Sure, our laws may keep us at the mercy of big corps unlike these other people, BUT..." and have a ready rationalization for why our side is actually still superior when you look at it. Imagine what would happen if the populace figured it's getting collectively shafted in a way others may not.
- rubyfan 8mo ago
  >Imagine what would happen if the populace figured it's getting collectively shafted in a way others may not. They already believe that and it’s used to keep us fighting each other.
venkat223 8mo ago
All video and other contests should have ai stamp as most of the YouTube is AI generated.Almost like memes
mbreese 8mo ago
None of those bills/laws involve legislating publishing though. This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue, so it going to be tougher to enforce and keep from getting overturned in the courts. The question here are what are the limits the government can have on what a company publishes, regardless of how the content is generated. IMO, It’s a much tougher problem (legally) than protecting actors from AI infringement on their likeness. AI services are easier to regulate.. published AI generated content, much more difficult. The article also mentions efforts by news unions of guilds. This might be a more effective mechanism. If a person/union/guild required members to add a tagline in their content/articles, this would have a similar effect - showing what is and what is not AI content without restricting speech.
- tempodox 8mo ago
  > This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue They can publish all they want, they just have to label it clearly. I don’t see how that is a free speech issue.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Because compelled speech is an insult to free speech just as censored speech is.
    - fwip 8mo ago
      How do you feel about the fact that manufacturers need to list the ingredients of the food they sell you?
      - mothballed 8mo ago
        Not thrilled about it, and I personally would rather see them repealed. I will concede compelled speech impositions have been interpreted more generously when they are commercial. I don't necessarily agree with it, but even if we concede they can happen, I hope that distinction is made for commercial vs non-commercial content. Though I'm not thrilled with it happening for either.
tencentshill 8mo ago
I'll bet AI is going to be simply outlawed for hiring, and possibly algorithmic hiring practices altogether. You can't audit a non-deterministic system unless you train the AI from scratch, which is an expense only the wealthiest companies can take on.
snickerbockers 8mo ago
I honestly just don't see any point in these laws because they're all predicated on the people who own the AI's acting in good faith. In a way I actually think they're a net negative because they seem to be giving a false impression that these problems have an obvious solution. One of the most persistent and also the dumbest opinion I keep seeing both among laymen and people who really ought to know better is that we can solve the deepfake problem by mandating digital watermarks on generated content.
toofy 8mo ago
> SAFE for Kids Act [pending] (restricts algorithmic feeds for minors). i personally would love to see something like this but changed a little: for every user (not just minors) require a toggle: upfront, not buried, always in your face toggle to turn off algorithmic feeds, where you’ll only see posts from people you follow, in the order in which they post it. again, no dark patterns, once a user toggles to a non-algorithmic feeds, it should stick. this would do a lot to restore trust. i don’t really use the big social medias much any more, but when i did i can not tell you how many posts i missed because the algorithms are kinda dumb af. like i missed friends anniversary celebrations, events that were right up my alley, community projects, etc… because the algorithms didn’t think the posts announcing the events would be addictive enough for me. no need to force it “for the kids” when they can just give everyone the choice.
dyauspitr 8mo ago
I believe it’s because it will be impossible to enforce. It might have some teeth with LLMs that add watermarks to their images but otherwise you could have one human in the loop for 10,000 articles and not call it AI.

vasco 8mo ago

~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 8mo ago
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.
- vasco 8mo ago
  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.
- RobotToaster 8mo ago
  That would bankrupt every news organisation in the USA.
  - _blk 8mo ago
    Seems like a good idea then
- mothballed 8mo ago
  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.
- terminalshort 8mo ago
  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?
  - layer8 8mo ago
    You’re still allowed to say virtually anything you want if you make it clear that it’s an opinion and not news reporting. Not citing sources doesn’t imply plagiarism, as long as you don’t misrepresent someone else’s research as your own (such as in an academic paper). Giving an account of news that you heard elsewhere in your own words isn’t plagiarism. The hurdles for plagiarism are generally relatively high.

jMyles 8mo ago

> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. I think the reason is that most people don't believe, at least on sufficiently long times scales, that legacy states are likely to be able to shape AI (or for that matter, the internet). The legitimacy of the US state appears to be in a sort of free-fall, for example. It takes a long time to fully (or even mostly) understand the various machinations of legislative action (let alone executive discretion, and then judicial interpretation), and in that time, regardless of what happens in various capitol buildings, the tests pass and the code runs - for better and for worse. And even amidst a diversity of views/assessments of the future of the state, there seems to be near consensus regarding the underlying impetus: obviously humans and AI are distinct, and hearing the news from a human, particular a human with a strong web-of-trust connection in your local society, is massively more credible. What's not clear is whether states have a role to play in lending clarity to the situation, or whether that will happen of the internet's accord.

raincole 8mo ago

> I'm surprised to see so little coverage of AI legislation news here tbh. Because no one believes these laws or bills or acts or whatever will be enforced. But I actually believe they'll be. In the worst way possible: honest players will be punished disproportionally.

cheschire 8mo ago
Yeah it’s like that episode of schoolhouse rock about how a bill becomes a law now takes place in squid games.
- razingeden 8mo ago
  >But I wonder who that sad little scrap of 8,523 pieces of paper is?
just_once 8mo ago
What does that look like? Can you describe your worst case scenario?
- amelius 8mo ago
  Worst case? Armed officers entering your home without warrant, taking away your GPU card?
  - just_once 8mo ago
    They can do that anyway. What does that have to do with the content of the proposed law?
- jandrese 8mo ago
  Highly selective enforcement along partisan lines to suppress dissent. Government officials forcing you to prove that your post is not AI generated if they don't like it. Those same officials claiming that it is AI generated regardless of the facts on the ground to have it removed and you arrested.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

totetsu 8mo ago

Ai view from Simmons+simmons is a very good newsletter on the topic of ai regulation https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clptn86e8002ou2ewlci4y2qx/ai-view https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clptn86e8002...

Balinares 8mo ago

Don't ding the amusingly scoped animosity, it's very convenient: we get to say stuff like "Sure, our laws may keep us at the mercy of big corps unlike these other people, BUT..." and have a ready rationalization for why our side is actually still superior when you look at it. Imagine what would happen if the populace figured it's getting collectively shafted in a way others may not.

rubyfan 8mo ago
>Imagine what would happen if the populace figured it's getting collectively shafted in a way others may not. They already believe that and it’s used to keep us fighting each other.

venkat223 8mo ago

All video and other contests should have ai stamp as most of the YouTube is AI generated.Almost like memes

mbreese 8mo ago

None of those bills/laws involve legislating publishing though. This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue, so it going to be tougher to enforce and keep from getting overturned in the courts. The question here are what are the limits the government can have on what a company publishes, regardless of how the content is generated. IMO, It’s a much tougher problem (legally) than protecting actors from AI infringement on their likeness. AI services are easier to regulate.. published AI generated content, much more difficult. The article also mentions efforts by news unions of guilds. This might be a more effective mechanism. If a person/union/guild required members to add a tagline in their content/articles, this would have a similar effect - showing what is and what is not AI content without restricting speech.

tempodox 8mo ago
> This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue They can publish all they want, they just have to label it clearly. I don’t see how that is a free speech issue.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  Because compelled speech is an insult to free speech just as censored speech is.
  - fwip 8mo ago
    How do you feel about the fact that manufacturers need to list the ingredients of the food they sell you?
    - mothballed 8mo ago
      Not thrilled about it, and I personally would rather see them repealed. I will concede compelled speech impositions have been interpreted more generously when they are commercial. I don't necessarily agree with it, but even if we concede they can happen, I hope that distinction is made for commercial vs non-commercial content. Though I'm not thrilled with it happening for either.

tencentshill 8mo ago

I'll bet AI is going to be simply outlawed for hiring, and possibly algorithmic hiring practices altogether. You can't audit a non-deterministic system unless you train the AI from scratch, which is an expense only the wealthiest companies can take on.

snickerbockers 8mo ago

I honestly just don't see any point in these laws because they're all predicated on the people who own the AI's acting in good faith. In a way I actually think they're a net negative because they seem to be giving a false impression that these problems have an obvious solution. One of the most persistent and also the dumbest opinion I keep seeing both among laymen and people who really ought to know better is that we can solve the deepfake problem by mandating digital watermarks on generated content.

toofy 8mo ago

> SAFE for Kids Act [pending] (restricts algorithmic feeds for minors). i personally would love to see something like this but changed a little: for every user (not just minors) require a toggle: upfront, not buried, always in your face toggle to turn off algorithmic feeds, where you’ll only see posts from people you follow, in the order in which they post it. again, no dark patterns, once a user toggles to a non-algorithmic feeds, it should stick. this would do a lot to restore trust. i don’t really use the big social medias much any more, but when i did i can not tell you how many posts i missed because the algorithms are kinda dumb af. like i missed friends anniversary celebrations, events that were right up my alley, community projects, etc… because the algorithms didn’t think the posts announcing the events would be addictive enough for me. no need to force it “for the kids” when they can just give everyone the choice.

dyauspitr 8mo ago

I believe it’s because it will be impossible to enforce. It might have some teeth with LLMs that add watermarks to their images but otherwise you could have one human in the loop for 10,000 articles and not call it AI.