New Bill in New York Would Require Disclaimers on AI-Generated News Content (niemanlab.org) 33
An anonymous reader shares a report: A new bill in the New York state legislature would require news organizations to label AI-generated material and mandate that humans review any such content before publication. On Monday, Senator Patricia Fahy (D-Albany) and Assemblymember Nily Rozic (D-NYC) introduced the bill, called The New York Fundamental Artificial Intelligence Requirements in News Act -- The NY FAIR News Act for short.
"At the center of the news industry, New York has a strong interest in preserving journalism and protecting the workers who produce it," said Rozic in a statement announcing the bill. A closer look at the bill shows a few regulations, mostly centered around AI transparency, both for the public and in the newsroom. For one, the law would demand that news organizations put disclaimers on any published content that is "substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence."
"At the center of the news industry, New York has a strong interest in preserving journalism and protecting the workers who produce it," said Rozic in a statement announcing the bill. A closer look at the bill shows a few regulations, mostly centered around AI transparency, both for the public and in the newsroom. For one, the law would demand that news organizations put disclaimers on any published content that is "substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence."
Re: Really? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The bias, the selective coverage, the fabrications, the uncorrected errors, and so on. Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, calling The Babylon Bee a "misinformation site" because of its satire, parroting the Duke lacrosse and John McCain affair hoaxes (the latter when the claims were decades stale and long debunked), forcing out James Bennet and Bari Weiss for publishing a US Senator on the opinion page, the 1619 Project, etc.
Re: While they are at it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't ever seen any lies on CNN to be honest. When they talk about Trump lying on this or that they generally give the evidence. I can't say I watch FOX but it's hard to see how they could provide evidence for all the things they say. The overall point being that true journalism is double and triple checked. You don't just broadcast the words of the president verbatim without backing it up if there is true journalistic integrity. They call it FOX news but without journalistic integrity they are really entertainment and not news.
Re: While they are at it ... (Score:2)
"Anonymous source(s) reportedâ¦" is how they legally get away with lying. They all do it. Anyone still relying on mass media is fooling themselves. Best to watch the people making the claims say it directly from their mouths. And not snippets or sound bites, the entirety of their speeches, interviews, and statements.
I saw an article talking about how Americans are surprised they are not able to claim the new tax deductions on their recent car purchase because they didnâ(TM)t read the fine pri
Re: While they are at it ... (Score:2)
Trump is much more clearly suffering from dementia than Biden was. There have been articles about what Trump would actually do differently if he did have dementia, which is mostly nothing.. but CNN doesnt talk about that either.. because there is no evidence.
Re: While they are at it ... (Score:3)
Fox News is just about always truthful. You just have to watch out for the tricks they use (on 95%+ of their stories)...
(1) non-representative selection. Headline "illegal immigrant murders local mother", which is true in this case, but they don't report the other 99 murders that went by immigrants, and don't report a general trend of immigrants causing less crime overall per capita. (I made up this specific example to illustrate their trick)
(2) report quotes: headline "Biden's senility was covered up, says
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News is just about always truthful.
You just have to watch out for the tricks they use (on 95%+ of their stories)
This is why the right wing is winning. Anyone rational doesn't even know what to do with such blatantly contradicting statements.
Thinking this through, (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait .... are you AI? -_-
Unenforcable BS (Score:2)
This law would be totally unenforceable for at least three reasons. First, I'd like you to define "AI". (The law will have to do that, and it will fail to do so in any meaningful fashion.) Second, prove to me in court that AI was used. Three, this law is obviously contrary to the US Constitution.
Another "We're Doing Something About It" theatrical gesture, with a taste of panic over how the world has been taken over by AI and there ain't a fucking thing anybody can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
My arguments in reply of your concerns: 1) Definition: They don't have to define AI in the law; the newspaper are not going to invent some new mathematical approach, they are going to use commercial tools. The newspapers will self-incriminate by using tools that claim to be AI. Anyway LLM is another worg they can include.
2) Proof in court: It is enforceable as any regulation of a process that isn't immediately visible (like in the food or water industry). A whistleblower will talk and bring internal emails.
Re: (Score:3)
First, I'd like you to define "AI".
Not generated by a human as it's been done for centuries. Now start splitting hairs and moving the goalposts.
Second, prove to me in court that AI was used.
See above. Start splitting the hairs more finely.
Three, this law is obviously contrary to the US Constitution.
No it isn't.
Of course it's unconstitutional (Score:3)
The 1st Amendment prevents the abridging of the freedom of the press. Within that freedom is the choice of how to generate the material it puts on its pages and how to label it. That freedom also gives it the right to say whatever it likes and only to be held liable for severe defamation. In that context the bill is surely unconstitutional.
The problem here, of course, is that the freedom of the press is based on the assumption that journalists and editors can be expected to do the right thing. This has been
Re: (Score:2)
The 1st Amendment prevents the abridging of the freedom of the press. Within that freedom is the choice of how to generate the material it puts on its pages
Yes.
and how to label it.
No.
Laws regarding content labeling are not a new idea. They exist. They have been tested and upheld by the courts.
Fascinating claim (Score:2)
Thank you. Got a source for that?
Re: (Score:2)
From Google:
Those aren't about the press (Score:2)
I agree that those categories of labelling have been accepted, but the press gets special treatment!
Re: (Score:2)
Did you use spellcheck? Modern office uses AI for that.
Spellcheck isn't "generative AI", and does not make the content "substantially authored" by the spellchecker.
The scope of the law, from TFA: "substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence.”
AI Lies Less Than Many News Outlets (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Substantially (Score:2)
Should have already happened (Score:3)
Nonsense (Score:2)
The news outlets are not being restrained from publishing.
This bill is intended to ensure people are not misled into thinking that "AI" news was actually written by real journalists who do things like fact-checking before publication.
Surely no reputable news organisation would ever oppose measures to prevent people from being misled?
A good start. (Score:2)
The goal should be to have anything published that used "AI" in its creation to carry a clear and obvious warning label.
News, films, TV shows, social media posts, all of it should carry specific warnings - much like the nutrition-breakdown labels of food - so that people can make an informed decision about the veracity of what they choose to consume.