And the sky is blue
New California law requires AI to tell you it’s AI
Submitted 5 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
sturmblast@lemmy.world 5 months ago
minorkeys@lemmy.world 5 months ago
If you ask ChatGPT, it says it’s guidelines include not giving the impression it’s a human. But if you ask it be less human because it is confusing you, it says that would break the guidelines.
markovs_gun@lemmy.world 5 months ago
ChatGPT doesn’t know its own guidelines because those aren’t even included in its training corpus. Never trust an LLM about how it works or how it “thinks” because fundamentally these answers are fake.
PixeIOrange@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That might end like the cookie popups in the eu…
Ultraword@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
How do you enforce this
vane@lemmy.world 5 months ago
What if it’s foreign AI ?
Donkter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yeah for real, what does this mean exactly? All forms of machine learning? That’s a lot of computers at this moment, it’s just we only colloquially call the chat bot versions “AI”. But even that gets vague do reactive video game NPCs get counted as “AI?” Or all of our search algorithms and spell check programs?
At that point what’s the point? The disclosure would become as meaningless as websites asking for cookies or the number of things known to cause cancer in the state of California.
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
But Peter Thiel said regulating AI will bring the biblical apocalypse. ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ
ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Weird hoe california keeps being the most progressive state in the US.
It’s like being the best smelling turd in a toilet, but at least it’s something.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
Will someone please tell California that “AI” doesn’t exist?
Worthless politicians making worthless laws.
cactusfacecomics@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Seems reasonable to me. If you’re using AI then you should be required to own up to it. If you’re too embarrassed to own up to it, then maybe you shouldn’t be using it.
Rooster326@programming.dev 5 months ago
What about my if else AI algorithm?
It’s not really an llm
eldebryn@lemmy.world 5 months ago
IMO if your “A*” style algorithm is used for chatbot or any kind of user interaction or content generation, it should still be explicitly declared.
That being said, there is some nuance here about A) use of Copyrighted material and B) Non-deterministic behaviour. Neither of which is (usually) a concern in more classical non-DL approaches to AI solutions.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
I’m stoked to see the legal definition of “AI”. I’m sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.
MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Prosecution: “Your Honor, the definition of artificial is ‘made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,’ and as all human beings are themselves produced by human beings, we are definitionally artificial. Therefore, the actions of an intelligent human are inherently AI.”
Defense: “The defense does not argue this point, as such. However, our client, FOX News, could not be said to be exhibiting ‘intelligence.’ Artificial they may be, but AI they are clearly not. We rest our case.”
djmikeale@feddit.dk 5 months ago
If I’m not AI, can I lie and pretend that I’m AI? I’m AI, btw.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 months ago
What if I just use AI to generate all my content and then put an intern in a chair to launder it as original human thoughts?
MathiasTCK@lemmy.world 5 months ago
#JobCreator
djmikeale@feddit.dk 5 months ago
Now that’s smart!
Hungry_man@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Its insane how a predictive chat bot model is called AI
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
USA is run by capitalist grifters. There is no objective meaning under this regime. It’s all just misleading buzzwords and propaganda.
Landless2029@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Marketing
shane@feddit.nl 5 months ago
I mean, we call the software that runs computer players in games AI, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
potpotato@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Do we? Aren’t they just bots? Like I’m not looking at an NPC and calling it AI.
Hungry_man@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The AI chatbot brainrot is way worse tbh.someone legit said to me why don’t chatgpt cure cancer like wtf
madjo@feddit.nl 5 months ago
bleep bloop… I am a real human being who loves doing human being stuff like breathing and existing
iopq@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Is that after or before it has to tell you it may cause cancer?
Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Hi there, Cancer Robot here! Excellent question iopq! We state that we cause cancer first, as is tradition.
Wilco@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Ok, this is a REALLY smart law!
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
As a Califirnian, I will do my job from here on out.
Evotech@lemmy.world 5 months ago
So does the EU AI act
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
It’s comforting to know that politicians in the EU also have no clue what “AI” is.
Evotech@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Why do you say that
skisnow@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
My LinkedIn feed is 80% tech bros complaining about the EU AI Act, not a single one of whom is willing to be drawn on which exact clause it is they don’t like.
Dojan@pawb.social 5 months ago
They’re probably not super fond of the idea of AI not being allowed to be deployed to manipulate people.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 5 months ago
Oh, so just like with the GDPR, cool.
notarobot@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
Did you seriously use LinkedIn? I always thougt that it was just narsisitic people posting about themselves never having any real conversations and only adding superficial replies to posts that align 100% with them
utopiah@lemmy.world 5 months ago
My LinkedIn feed
Yes… it’s so bad that I just never log in until I receive a DM, and even then I login, check it, if it’s useful I warn people I don’t use LinkedIn anymore then log out.
Evotech@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I get it though, if you’re an upstart. Having to basically hire an extra guy just to do compliance is a huge hit to the barrier of entry
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
ashar@infosec.pub 5 months ago
I am an AI, I think. Probably.
utopiah@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Don’t devaluate yourself, you’re infinitely more.
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
Fun Fact:
Did you know, that cops are required to tell you if they’re a cop? It’s in the constitution!
AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 5 months 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”.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Can’t do anything that might negatively impact business.
hedge_lord@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I am of the firm opinion that if a machine is “speaking” to me then it must sound a cartoon robot. No exceptions!
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I want my AI to sound like a Speak & Spell.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 months ago
i would like my GPS to sound like Brian Blessed otherwise i want all computers to sound like Niki Yang
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I propose that they must use vocaloid voices or that old voice code that Wasteland 3 uses for the bob the robot looking guys.
Attacker94@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
The state will lose money in courts if they even try to enforce this.
Attacker94@lemmy.world 5 months ago
How do you figure, I haven’t seen the actual text, is it written ambiguously? If not, I would imagine that they be able to enforce it, the only thing is the scope is very small.
mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
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.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Be sure to tell this to “AI”. It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.
dil@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
, btw I’m ai after every message
guest123456@lemmynsfw.com 5 months ago
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.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
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.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
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.
pHr34kY@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It would be nice if this extended to all text, images and video on news websites. That’s where the real damage is happening.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
Yes the state should violently enforce its arbitrary laws in every aspect of our lives. \s
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
The problem is that “AI” doesn’t actually exist. For example, Photoshop has features that are called “AI”. Should every designer be forced to label their work if they use some “AI” tool.
This is a problem with making violent laws based on meaningless language.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
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.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 5 months ago
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.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Same old corporations will ignore the law, pay a petty fine once a year, and call it the cost of doing business.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 months ago
-“If you’re an AI Cop, you have to tell me. It’s the law.” -“I’m not a cop”