Fun Fact:
Did you know, that cops are required to tell you if they’re a cop? It’s in the constitution!
Submitted 8 hours ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Fun Fact:
Did you know, that cops are required to tell you if they’re a cop? It’s in the constitution!
Nice.
That’s exactly what an LLM trained on Reddit would say.
If I was an AI, I’d have to tell you since I am in California. 😌
Are you AI? You have to tell me if you’re AI, it’s the law.
I’m required by law to inform my neighbours that I am AI.
It would be nice if this extended to all text, images and video on news websites. That’s where the real damage is happening.
Actually seems easier (probably not at the state level) to mandate cameras and such digitally sign any media they create. No signature or verification, no trust.
I get what you’re going for but this would absolutely wreck privacy. And depending on how those signatures are created, someone could create a virtual camera that would sign images and then we would be back to square one.
I don’t have a better idea though.
No signature or verification, no trust
And the people that are going to check for a digital signature in the first place, THEN check that the signature emanates from a trusted key, then, eventually, check who’s deciding the list of trusted keys… those people, where are they?
Because the lack of trust, validation, verification, and more generally the lack of any credibility hasn’t stopped anything from spreading like a dumpster fire in a field full of dumpsters doused in gasoline. Part of my job is providing digital signature tools and creating “trusted” data (I’m not in sales, obviously), and the main issue is that nobody checks anything, even when faced with liability, even when they actually pay for an off the shelve solution to do so. And I’m talking about people that should care, not even the general public.
There are a lot of steps before “digitally signing everything” even get on people’s radar. For now, a green checkmark anywhere is enough to convince anyone, sadly.
I am of the firm opinion that if a machine is “speaking” to me then it must sound a cartoon robot. No exceptions!
I propose that they must use vocaloid voices or that old voice code that Wasteland 3 uses for the bob the robot looking guys.
Be sure to tell this to “AI”. It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.
And if it hallucinates?
Straight to jail
Devils advocate here. Any human can also hallucinate. Some of them even do it as a recreational activity
Same old corporations will ignore the law, pay a petty fine once a year, and call it the cost of doing business.
, btw I’m ai after every message
ok now how do I get it where I live?
VPN set to California?
Oooooooh! As long as California doesn’t do those stupid ID verification laws, that might be the place to set your VPN from now on.
Move to California.
Probably will get it anyway, companies don’t like to build and maintain software for two different markets so they tend to just follow the regulations of the strictest market, especially if those regulations don’t really cut into there bottom line like this one.
This sounds about as useful as the California law that tells ICE they aren’t allowed to cover their face, or the California law that tells anyone selling anything ever that they have to tell you it will give you cancer. Performative laws are what we’re best at here in California.
Has anyone been able to find the text of the law, the article didn’t mention the penalties, I want to know if this actually means anything.
Yeah, this is an important point. If the penalty is too small, AI companies will just consider it a cost of doing business. Flat-rate fines only being penalties for the poor, and all that.
Headline is kind of misleading. It requires a notice to be shown in a chat or interface that said chatbot is not a real person if it’s not obvious that it’s an LLM. I originally took the headline to mean that an LLM would have to tell you if it’s an LLM or not itself, which is, of course, not really possible to control generally. A nice gesture if it were enforced, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
I think it’s one of those perfect is the enemy of good kinds of situations. Go further is more complicated and requires more consideration and more analysis of consequences, etc. and that can take some time. But this is kinda no-brainer kind of legislation so pass this now while making the considerations on some more robust legislation to pass later.
Any word on the 3 laws of robotics?
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 46 minutes ago
Okay, but when can the law straight up ban companies who don’t comply with the law from operating in the state instead of just slapping them on the wrist and telling them “no” the same way a pushover parent tells their child “no”.