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.

Even beyond AI, the vast majority of news is re-packaging information you got from somewhere else. AI can replace the re-writers, but not the original journalists, people who spoke to primary sources (or who were themselves eyewitnesses).

Any factual document should reference its sources. If not, it should be treated skeptically, regardless of whether AI or a human is doing that.

An article isn't automatically valueless just because it's synthesized. It can focus and contextualize, regardless of whether it's human or AI written. But it should at the very least be able to say "This is the actual fact of the matter", with a link to it. (And if AI has hallucinated the link, that's a huge red flag.)

To emphasize this: it's important that the organization assume responsibility, just as they would with traditional human-generated 'content'.

What we don't want is for these disclaimers to be used like the disclaimers of tech companies deploying AI: to try to weasel out of responsibility.

"Oh no, it's 'AI', who could have ever foreseen the possibility that it would make stuff up, and lie about it confidently, with terrible effects. Aw, shucks: AI, what can ya do. We only designed and deployed this system, and are totally innocent of any behavior of the system."

Also don't turn this into a compliance theatre game, like we have with information security.

"We paid for these compliance products, and got our certifications, and have our processes, so who ever could have thought we'd be compromised."

(Other than anyone who knows anything about these systems, and knows that the stacks and implementation and processes are mostly a load of performative poo, chosen by people who really don't care about security.)

Hold the news orgs responsible for 'AI' use. The first time a news report wrongly defames someone, or gets someone killed, a good lawsuit should wipe out all their savings on staffing.

> substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence

The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one. This wording makes it seem like you could do light editing and proof-reading without disclosing that you used AI to help with that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65

https://www.w3.org/community/ai-content-disclosure/

https://github.com/dweekly/ai-content-disclosure

IMO: it's already too late and effort should instead be focussed on recognition of this and quickly moving on to prevention through education instead of trying to smother it with legislation, it is just not going away.

One approach we’ve been exploring is turning high-stakes AI outputs (like news summaries or classifications) into consensus jobs: multiple independent agents submit or vote under explicit policies, with incentives and accountability, and the system resolves the result before anything is published. The goal isn’t “AI is right,” but “this outcome was reached under clear rules and can be audited.”

That kind of structure seems more scalable than adding disclaimers after the fact. We’re experimenting with this idea on an open source CLI at https://consensus.tools if anyone’s interested in the underlying mechanics.

Step 3: regulator prohibits putting label on content that is not AI generated

Step 4: outlets make sure to use AI for all content

Let's call it the "Sesame effect"

So clawdbot may become a legal risk in New York, even if it doesn't generate copy.

And you can't use AI to help evaluate which data AI is forbidden to see, so you can't use AI over unknown content. This little side-proposal could drastically limit the scope of AI usefulness over all, especially as the idea of data forbidden to AI tech expands to other confidential material.

[Edit: spelling sigh]

It also doesn't work to penalize fraudulent warnings - they simply include a harmless bit of AI to remain in compliance.

Now articles from organizations with legitimate journalists and fact checkers like the NYT, WSJ, or the economist will need an “AI generated” badge because they used an AI assistant and they have risk adverse legal departments. This will be gleefully pointed out by every brain dead Twitter conspiracy theorist, Breitbart columnist, 911 truther substack writer, and Russian spam bot as they happily spew unbadged drivel out into the world. Thanks so much New York!

AI doesn’t make bad news content. Complete disregard for objective reality does. I’ll take an ai assisted human that actually cares about truth over an unassisted partisan hooligan every time.

If this is the best our legislatures can come up with we are so utterly fucked…

Status Quo Bias is a real thing, and we are seeing those people in meltdown with the world changing around them. They think avoiding AI, putting disclaimers on it, etc... will matter. But they aren't being rational, they are being emotional.

The economic value is too high to stop and the cat is out of the bag with 400B models on local computers.

>The use of generative artificial intelligence systems shall not result in: (i) discharge, displacement or loss of position

Being able to fire employees is a great use of AI and should not be restricted.

> or (ii) transfer of existing duties and functions previously performed by employees or worker

Is this saying you can't replace an employee's responsibilities with AI? No wonder the article says it is getting union support.