• pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It would be nice if this extended to all text, images, audio and video on news websites. That’s where the real damage is happening.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 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.

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          An individual wouldn’t verify this but enough independent agencies or news orgs would probably care enough to verify a photo. For the vast majority we’re already too far gone to properly separate fiction an reality. If we can’t get into a courtroom and prove that a picture or video is fact or fiction then we’re REALLY fucked.

  • cactusfacecomics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    10 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.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    10 months ago

    Same old corporations will ignore the law, pay a petty fine once a year, and call it the cost of doing business.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Be sure to tell this to “AI”. It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.

  • hedge_lord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 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!

  • Attacker94@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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.

    Edit: I found a website that says the penalty follows 5000*sum(n+k) where n is number of days since first infraction, this has a closed form of n^2+n= (7500^-1)y where y is the total compounded fee. This makes it cost 1mil in 11 days and 1bil in a year.

    reference

  • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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.

  • minorkeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 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.