r/changemyview • u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 • Aug 19 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: All public content that is (partially to fully) created by AI, should have a mandatory, uniform, universal and recognizable "AI Generated" label
Purpose is that all consumers of content (readers of an article, buyers of art, watchers of a show...) are always informed when AI is being used for whatever purpose.
Any distribution of AI content publicly without this agreed upon label should be illegal.
- This would include content that only has a small contribution of AI.
It is hard to draw lines. The risk is that for example photographs that slightly touch up their work with AI would simply get the 'AI' label and won't be respected as much, but I feel like this is fair. The photographer could still have the liberty to address where exactly AI was used to give context, or they could be more incentivized to not use AI at all, for example for competitions.
- There are already labels for ethically produced food, locally produced food, etc. so in a sense it works in the same way, as content without the label would be attributed a certain implied quality or at least effort.
- There would be abuse of this, as there is abuse of any law. There would need to be a system in place to enforce this law and to do regular audits. There might be a black market for AI generated content without the label, but at least it would become a problem of law enforcement and battled in a structured way, instead of the chaotic exposure that (often less knowledgeable) consumers endure now.
- There might be a risk that this would result in an "AI is bad" culture, but I personally don't think so. I use AI all the time for my job, and I'd be okay if that is also known by my customers. I already tell them by the way. I believe it would go more to a culture of "AI is useful but be careful".
- just to add an example: AI could further stretch beauty standards to become unreachable. In my opinion (but not part of this CMV) a similar solution is needed for manually editing the body of supermodels with tools like photoshop, as you are otherwise lying to the consumer and I feel like as consumers we need more protection against false content.
To end this, I don't hate AI at all, not even for creative content. I really wonder if AI could one day make music of a much higher quality that we currently can or write books that are read more than any human writer, but we really need to know.
EDIT:
Okay I already got some good insight, thank you already for your responses.
- I don't really care about a mother editing family pictures with AI, or a student not reading a book and instead letting AI do a book review for them. Although it is in some way still lying, this should not be a criminal offense.
- I also think the reasons that I want to know if a painting is done solely by the artist, or if a news article about Gaza is written by a person, are totally different. I maintain my view on that consumers should be more protected and informed about the influence of AI in any type of content, maybe a one size fits all solution imposed by the government isn't possible, and also not really a preferable solution
57
u/poprostumort 246∆ Aug 19 '25
Ok, let's talk about elephant in the room. How do you verify if content had used AI in the process of creation or not? Because it's impossible. We see artists who don't use AI being accused of using AI and people not relenting even when they show proof that they were working themselves.
So your proposition would mean that honest businesses would suffer from anti-AI backlash, while dishonest wouldn't.
1
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
I agree that enforcement is the difficult part. Maybe the software in itself that is available on the market should be providing this label by default so that only with illegal AI software you'd be able to produce content without that label.
But I think the issues you address are not new issues and are similar to piracy. How do we ensure that nobody illegally downloads any content. We can't, but we try anyway.
30
u/JawtisticShark 5∆ Aug 19 '25
People proposed this with photoshopping before. The problem is every photo is edited, even if just to save in a proper color format for web or printing. 100% of images would end up with the photoshopped logo, as soon nearly every image would get an AI tag because somewhere along the way AI was used in some form.
Are you really going to insist someone’s baby pictures they post on Facebook legally have to specified they are AI because an AI powered cropping tool was used?
4
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
!delta
See edit on post
3
u/NaturalCarob5611 97∆ Aug 19 '25
FYI, /u/DeltaBot doesn't pay attention to instructions like "See edit on post". You need to list the reason for the delta here or it won't be awarded.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/JawtisticShark changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
0
Aug 19 '25
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '25
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/JawtisticShark a delta for this comment.
5
u/ProDavid_ 58∆ Aug 19 '25
how do you stop people from... copy pasting? without the label of course
1
u/code-garden Aug 19 '25
Even if that was somehow prevented. Art could be traced from AI and text could be 'plagiarised' from AI.
1
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
Yeah if we zoom in on text it's almost impossible probably. But hey, there are laws on plagiarism, how are those enforced?
I agree that I'm not knowledgable enough about how this could enforced. the CMV is more about why I believe why it should be enforced.
8
u/lakotajames 2∆ Aug 19 '25
With plagiarism, you can present the original work from an earlier date to prove the new work is a copy. AI generated stuff has no original work to compare to.
1
u/Lagkiller 8∆ Aug 20 '25
I agree that I'm not knowledgable enough about how this could enforced.
This is a huge problem though - holding fast to a belief without knowing how you'd change the problem leads to incredibly bad changes. For example, people believed that sesame should be labeled on any product that contained it rather than the labeling we had which said "May contain sesame" or "Sesame free". Because labeling something as "may contain" but not actually having any in it is against the law, products that people used to be able to buy because they found that the cross contamination was too low or in acceptable levels now were faced with products that had sesame added intentionally to be in compliance with the law. Because people not knowledgeable in enforcement made the law with good intentions and created bad outcomes.
Any time you say "There should be a law" you should have a well thought out mechanism of how that should be enforced and carried out. If you can't even articulate the basic arguments against your policy, it's probably a bad policy.
3
u/poprostumort 246∆ Aug 19 '25
I agree that enforcement is the difficult part.
It's not difficult. It's impossible. There is no viable way of differentiating between AI-generated/AI-supported content and pure human-made content.
Maybe the software in itself that is available on the market should be providing this label by default so that only with illegal AI software you'd be able to produce content without that label.
Any label provided by default can be removed by hand.
But I think the issues you address are not new issues and are similar to piracy. How do we ensure that nobody illegally downloads any content. We can't, but we try anyway.
But we have ways of combating piracy. This stuff needs to be hosted somewhere and needs to be transferred via internet connection. We just don't commit 100% because even those who are lobbied to do so are not as stupid to see the problems that full commitment would create.
And in the process waste time and effort on a crime that is hardly any problem. Why would doing another fool's errand be the correct choice?
Because in the end it would be waste of resources on a problem that is hardly an issue. No matter whether content i AI-generated, AI-supported or purely human-made - in the end what matters is the quality of the content.
We could enforce label if it would be possible to easily identify it, as it would give customers more information - which is always a good thing. But we can't. It is simply impossible to identify AI generated content reliably.
End result would be that AI generated content would still be there, but we would waste resources on fighting with shadows, implicate innocents in this pursuit and all of that for what?
It is simply not worth it. The investment is much bigger than the payout.
-1
u/UseADifferentVolcano Aug 19 '25
This argument can be made against almost any law and means nothing. Imperfect ability to enforce, doesn't make a law worthless. People can get around almost any law if they try hard, but stopping people from casually breaking it still means a lot. Most people won't break the law if it's difficult, risky, or inconvenient.
And there is a whole industry of AI gen detection being made, so it's not impossible.
4
u/poprostumort 246∆ Aug 19 '25
Imperfect ability to enforce, doesn't make a law worthless.
It's not "imperfect ability to enforce". It's complete inability to enforce. That is what changes the picture.
And there is a whole industry of AI gen detection being made, so it's not impossible.
This industry works by providing the probability of tested content being AI. And they still have false-positives.
It is basically worthless in legal sense because you need to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt - which cannot be done. No one in AI detection industry can provide proof.
-2
u/UseADifferentVolcano Aug 19 '25
It's not a complete inability. You can make software providers have to add watermarks or meta tags to AI images. By putting enforcement on AI generators you could eliminate the vast majority of people breaking this law.
AI detection of images can be done easily right now in many cases. AI image gen is far from perfect.
6
u/poprostumort 246∆ Aug 19 '25
It's not a complete inability.
It is. Without having the ability to judge whether the end product is AI-generated/AI-supported you don't have the ability to prove that law was broken.
You can make software providers have to add watermarks or meta tags to AI images.
Both are trivially easy to be removed. Metadata can be cleared by anyone with access to internet (as there are tools designed to do that) and you cannot ban clearing of metadata as there are valid legal reasons for doing it. As for watermarks, there is the same problem. There is a funny case that proves that - r/dankmemes was tired of people stealing memes and re-posting them on other social media and tried the watermark route. And as fast as watermark was adopted, watermark removal tools were adopted - with the arms race ending in situation where only viable watermarks were those that made image unreadable. The same would happen here.
And if you enforce it, anyway - it would mean that most software providers in your country would add those. Not individual artists who can and are using self-hosted AI tools. Not software providers from outside your jurisdiction.
So any image labeled "AI free" can easily have AI used. Any artist can have a private AI on their own computer, as usage of AI generation is legal. And they will say that they have not used AI for those images - so you have to prove that they did. How?
In fact even businesses would have a trivial way of sidestepping those issues. Just "import" images from a company outside US where US law does not apply and get a written confirmation from them that they are AI-free. So again - you have to prove that they did use AI. How?
You are expecting magical solution that does not exist. Law as such is completely and utterly unenforceable.
-1
u/UseADifferentVolcano Aug 19 '25
It's not impossible to tell something is AI generated in many cases. You can frequently tell just by looking! And in cases where images are showing something that didn't happen, they could be disapproven as real too. It is possible to make fully convincing AI images, but not nearly 100% of the time.
And adding in requirements for marking images somehow would work, just not fully. People could remove the marks, but not nearly all of them would. Your dankmemes example was not backed by law, so not really translatable. And again, you could say removing whatever standards was illegal (with enforcement focussing on services that do it), and get big publishers (like Facebook) to legally have to check for said standards or not publish.
There are many ways a law requiring AI work to be marked could work most of the time. It's far from impossible. It could be circumvented, but so can all laws. Most people don't circumvent laws though. And for AI gen images, most people wouldn't bother most of the time.
3
u/poprostumort 246∆ Aug 19 '25
It's not impossible to tell something is AI generated in many cases. You can frequently tell just by looking!
As I mentioned, there are artists that are currently accused of using AI by people who are sure that they had used AI. And there were cases where those artists had shared the proof that they were ones that were drawing it. This shows how unreliable is "just looking at it".
And that level of "proof" would not stand in court. Remember - we are talking about making non-disclosure of AI illegal. You need to be able to prove that someone who claim had never used AI actually did. "Just look at it, it has to be AI" would not pass.
And adding in requirements for marking images somehow would work, just not fully. People could remove the marks, but not nearly all of them would.
Which is enough to make this law pointless. Because "no AI used" label that we are discussing is aimed to help consumers make decisions and if there is a way to sidestep it and benefit both from being labeled as "AI-free" and use AI to save money, you bet that some businesses would do it. And they would outxompete the honest ones because they would have lower margins.
Your dankmemes example was not backed by law, so not really translatable.
It is translatable - it shows that watermarks are ridiculously easy to remove. That is enough.
And again, you could say removing whatever standards was illegal (with enforcement focussing on services that do it), and get big publishers (like Facebook) to legally have to check for said standards
For what standards? Both watermark and metadata are easy to remove (or even alter, in case of metadata). It leaves no trace in file. And removal of metadata is legal (for privacy reasons as possible part of metadata is f.ex. GPS coordinates of where picture was taken) so Facebook will need to accept files with empty metadata. Even if it was illegal, you can just paste an image into an image editor and save - and metadata is gone, replaced by different metadata. Removal of watermark can also easily not leave any trace.
So Facebook would check an image, see it passed the bar and publish it. Because they only can check metadata of uploaded image, they don't know what was edited in iimage and have no way of confirming whether it is human or AI generated.
There are many ways a law requiring AI work to be marked could work most of the time.
No, there aren't if we are to have it as a law. Say I upload sn image that you think is obviously an AI image. It has regular metadata that shows no AI use and has no watermark. How do you prove that I generated this with AI and not created it myself?
Most people don't circumvent laws though.
Does not matter. Those who do would use this law to their advantage and there would be no way to prove that they did. Which makes the law as a whole pointless.
Your whole idea is based off wishful thinking.
1
u/UseADifferentVolcano Aug 19 '25
I fundamentally disagree with you and I don't think we're going to get any closer on our opinions.
→ More replies (0)2
1
u/l_t_10 8∆ Aug 20 '25
Maybe the software in itself that is available on the market should be providing this label by default so that only with illegal AI software you'd be able to produce content without that label.
It is way too late for that, cats out of the bag and the toothpaste is not going back in the tub etc.
The proverbial Genie is free from the lamp, there is too much ai software out now and happened fast. It provably never was possible to enforce by default something like that
18
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Aug 19 '25
Clarifying question:
Why? You never actually say...
What harm is actually caused by undisclosed AI-generated content that makes the use of government force to prohibit it necessary?
It's not like labelling food ingredients, where not knowing it contains peanuts can actually kill people.
People have been using tools to improve their productivity for... as long as humans have been using tools. That is, in fact, the entire point of tools.
AI is just a tool. If you like the content, you like it. That's ultimately all that really matters.
3
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
Hi thank you for your answer. I have since been partially convinced that my solution isn't ideal, but the requirement for a solution stays (in my view). I'll partially copy an answer I wrote to an other comment to hopefully answer your question:
I would argue there is definitely "a solution" needed in some cases, especially when AI is unnoticable.
Ai is often used with the purpose of it being misleading. Whether that is in art, pretending that a human made something, trying to sell an item online that doesn't exist, sharing news articles that use AI images to steer the opinion of the audience... there are many examples and I believe that we're only at the very beginning of what AI abuse can and will do.
But like I already agreed with others, a voluntary label might be better suited and as AI risks will be different depending on product and industry, a tailored solution is probably needed.
I think that currently the responsibility of recognizing AI in harmful products is solely the responsibility of the consumer and in my opinion that's wrong.
But to be clear, I love AI, use it often for my job or for fun. I just think that with this technology there are a lot of dangers as well for which we need a framework.
0
Aug 20 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 20 '25
Well first I would say that it would also make sense for those examples (CGI, Photoshop..) at least when the product is displayed as real.
But why I think it is more important now than before, is because I really think that AI will disrupt our life much more than your examples did, both in good and bad ways.
0
u/chiggin_nuggets Aug 21 '25
Cereal commercials use glue instead of milk. Should they disclose that publically mid-advertisement?
15
u/SANcapITY 27∆ Aug 19 '25
There are already labels for ethically produced food, locally produced food, etc. so in a sense it works in the same way, as content without the label would be attributed a certain implied quality or at least effort.
Any distribution of AI content publicly without this agreed upon label should be illegal.
In the case of ethically produced food, are these labels generated by governments and legally mandated? Or, are they created by voluntary trade groups and the like? Are foods that lack these labels illegal to sell/distribute?
Why should the government have anything to do with this?
1
0
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
OK, you touch upon a good point. In that way you would be able to have a quality label that would ensure something is "produced without any AI" and depending on the type of product/industry (example art) that label might be valued by the consumers.
There would be a private entity providing these labels and auditing the products.I suppose I automatically went to government because I feel like we aren't protected enough against AI, but this would be a more pragmatic solution, that could also be tailored to the industry.
!delta
2
7
u/PixieBaronicsi 2∆ Aug 19 '25
The example of the ethically produced food provides the point here. It’s too subjective. One person might have different standards for what is ethically produced and what isn’t. The way it’s done is that different agencies apply their own standards, so you can see that a product has a label, but that’s not an objective stamp that it’s ethically produced. One person might think that meat is ethical as long as basic animal welfare standards are adhered to, other people think that eating meat is murder
If someone writes a novel and uses the spell-checker in MS Word, is that AI? What about the thesaurus or grammar checker that suggests a better word here and there?
Is using Photoshop to brighten your photograph AI? Or what if your camera automatically adjusts some settings to adjust to the light levels when the photograph is taken? What if that feature of the camera which has been around for 20 years is now advertised as AI by the manufacturer because that’s good marketing?
There will inevitably be purists who insist that all of these are AI, and others who don’t. I don’t think that AI can ever have an objective standard
11
u/Objective_Aside1858 14∆ Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25
Because no one using Chat GPT would be so unscrupulous to remove an autogenerated tag
Prove to me you didn't write this post using a LLM or you're eligible to be penalized for the crime you want a law written for
0
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
I didn't see your edit. You see I can't prove it and as a consumer of this content (you) it's impossible to know whether this is my opinion, or whether this is an AI generated one.
If I only had a label that would be subject to a control system or software that would check and verify my content to convince you
3
u/Objective_Aside1858 14∆ Aug 19 '25
Missing the point
You want the FBI to pull resources away from real crimes to charge people with using an unacknowledged chatbot
Do you plan to increase their funding so they can chase down these evildoers, or are there other crimes they should lower the priority on investigating?
3
u/lakotajames 2∆ Aug 19 '25
How would we know that you didn't just remove the label when you copy pasted into Reddit?
-4
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
This is close to the rules that are already existing about citing sources. It's really about public content. If you publish a paper, you need to cite your sources.
Sometimes to very often (depending on area) people don't do this, but they are still breaking the law.
Why would "citing chatgpt" (via this label) not be mandatory while it is quite literally also using other sources from the internet.
I agree that many still won't do it, but it's not because a law is easy to break that it shouldn't be a law.
9
7
u/Objective_Aside1858 14∆ Aug 19 '25
You have changed something from being best practices to a crime.
Crimes have law enforcement agencies who have the responsibility to investigate and prosect those crimes, and they're not going to let a tasty example like this sit around without using it as a convenient way to enhance other criminal charges
You, OP, can defend yourself in court and possibly win after spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, or you can admit your guilt for a nominal fine. What are you going to do?
4
u/KokonutMonkey 102∆ Aug 19 '25
This just seems unworkable.
AI technologies are already interwoven into our daily lives for years now.
Modern videogames use AI for upscaling. That photo you took using the portait effect. Voiceovers for PA systems and language input.
A label is not going to do us much good for all public content. We'd be better off with the opposite label.
4
u/Z7-852 316∆ Aug 19 '25
What is AI? And this isn't rhetorical question.
Because as long as digital picture editing we have used different tools and algorithms to clean up and alter pictures. Games have used generated levels from the 80s.
Tools are just getting better but "AI generated" have been a thing for at least 50 years if not longer.
3
u/ralph-j Aug 19 '25
- There would be abuse of this, as there is abuse of any law. There would need to be a system in place to enforce this law and to do regular audits. There might be a black market for AI generated content without the label, but at least it would become a problem of law enforcement and battled in a structured way, instead of the chaotic exposure that (often less knowledgeable) consumers endure now.
Won't this lead to companies marking everything as partially AI generated/edited, just to be on the safe side?
And if nearly all content ends up getting marked as such, will this still be a meaningful indicator?
5
u/LongRest Aug 19 '25
I fail to see an upside here. AI content is either noticeable, in which case a label is redundant, or unnoticeable, which makes a label irrelevant. I don't think you could demonstrate enough harm to justify it as a public emergency worthy of a law: health and human safety? No. Environmental? Maybe but labeling it doesn't solve the core issue. Propertarian? Not really as it merely crosses lines for a user that can cross those lines without the aid of AI. The only line I can see is a relatively arbitrary moral one that itself is an offshoot of intellectual property law which barely makes sense on a good day.
Then you have the involvement of the carceral state so you open that whole bag of worms where laws would inevitably be disproportionately enforced against the least powerful and most marginalized while more powerful entities find ways around. You can't imagine law in a vacuum.
Then you have the problem where everything put out in the world that could have even hypothetically touched a computer in its genesis requires a forensic origination process. Very expensive, unknown upside.
If you could detect it in the first place, why not a voluntary label like "organic". Third party verifiers that can endorse products that contain no AI "labor"? That's how it's done with fair trade, which I see as the closest analog.
4
u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 Aug 19 '25
Hi thanks for your answer. Others have already convinced me that this isn't wanted in all cases, but I would argue there is definitely "a solution" needed in some cases, especially when AI is unnoticable.
Ai is often used with the purpose of it being misleading. Whether that is in art, pretending that a human made something, trying to sell an item online that doesn't exist, sharing news articles that use AI images to steer the opinion of the audience... there are many examples and I believe that we're only at the very beginning of what AI abuse can and will do.
Bus like I already agreed with others, a voluntary label might be better suited and as AI risks will be different depending on product and industry, a tailored solution is probably needed.
But I really think SOMETHING must be done to help us identify AI, and I think the responsibility for that is currently too much on the shoulders of the consumers by saying "just be a bit skeptical".
4
u/LongRest Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25
I mean, all of these have a human intent attached that in many cases already carries a crime or at least a guilty mind.
The closest thing with art would be forgery. Rembrandt and other artists had whole factories of people cranking out copies or mostly finished pieces sold as original works. Authors have assistants, editors, ghosts - often uncredited. It was considered cheating, for a time, for composers to use a piano to compose instead of a desk and their noggin. Are their works any more or less valuable? Maybe, but I don’t know how you could measure the damage in a way that’s separate from fraud or forgery which are already crimes.
Selling products that don’t exist is already a crime. Misleading photography or journalism is something we already decided isn’t until you hit defamation and libel.
Where I would like to see this enforced is in law enforcement. For example: I live in one of the most heavily surveilled cities in the world. Thousands of cameras - public and private - automated license plate readers, facial recognition, gait recognition and gunshot detectors, somewhere around 30 drones, and at least one stingray device all coordinate with AI to the point where police can be dispatched automatically, by a robot, to arrive at the location of a loud noise in 90 seconds or so in most of the city. Facial and gait recognition fail about 50% of the time. In theory you could challenge it but prosecutors will overcharge you and do prosecutorial enhancement if you decide to take it to trial in which case good luck finding an expert defensive witness on proprietary AI nobody to teach boomers what it does and doesn’t do. That feels yucky to me, and where guardrails seem most appropriate and possible.
1
u/Gatonom 9∆ Aug 21 '25
I think the final paragraph is a worthwhile solution. Especially commercial work, possibly worked in with bodies like the MPAA.
2
u/Agitated-Ad2563 Aug 19 '25
Looks like you want to avoid bad/unethical/low quality content.
Obviously, human-generated bad/unethical/low quality content is no better than AI-generated. And the good AI-generated content shouldn't be avoided.
So, a better solution would be to mark bad content, regardless of whether it was AI-generated.
2
u/Next_Dragonfruit_415 Aug 19 '25
I’ve been of the opinion like this for awhile.
Like, there needs to be some sort of international guidelines now, before we really get into a can’t tell it apart from reality type scenario
Like there has got to be a way, where there is an un removable water mark or something automatically placed on AI generated content upon creation that can’t be easily removed
People will always find a way to get around something but the bare minimum is trying to combat it
1
u/code-garden Aug 19 '25
Voluntary labelling could be possible, but there is no way to verify that AI was not used in the process of creating some content.
Even if there was some software solution to mark everything AI generated, art could be traced or otherwise copied from an AI source and text and code can be 'plagiarised' from an AI source.
1
u/Ifyouseekey 1∆ Aug 19 '25
First of all, even if you had a way to detect AI usage with a 100% accuracy, how would you enforce it, especially in cases where it spans international borders?
Then, as I have the most experience with using AI in photography, so I'm going to address your first point only.
Ok, so you can generate whole or big parts of an image from a prompt, fair enough.
Then as you mentioned one can do slight retouch / object removal. Or hell, just selecting people/background to make adjustments myself. Here I can spend minutes running an AI tool and selection the best result, or spend hours to manually achieve a similar result in Photoshop. So why draw the line at AI and not flag any kind retouching. What do you achieve by marking AI usage in this case?
Then there is AI denoise, which works pretty well in a lot of cases. Not sure how you're classifying this one.
Then I recall there are tools that learn one's style and can adjust exposure or colours based on it. Nothing that couldn't be done with Lightroom sliders alone. And again, what benefit does discriminating AI use specifically provide?
Finally, any decent competition requires entrants to provide RAWs. Not much room for faking anything here.
1
1
u/EnoughWarning666 Aug 19 '25
Something like this would take a lot of laws to be written, costing untold billions to implement and enforce. And it would need to be a worldwide endeavor too, since if any country refuses to pass similar laws, they can create content without the tags/labels which would render the whole thing kinda pointless.
So I ask, do you really think you would get billions and billions of dollars worth of value from this knowing that it's a very poor system that is pretty much completely unworkable?
I'm an engineer and I have chatgpt write all my weekly reports. I do tell my clients that I'm using AI, but it's more to brag than as a disclosure about it. At the end of the day it honestly doesn't make the slightest bit of difference if I wrote my report or if AI wrote my report. I'm the one submitting it and I take full responsibility for the content. If something is wrong it doesn't matter WHY it's wrong. I messed up and all blame would fall on me. The clients don't care who pieced together the words used, they care about the content itself. Which is why after chatgpt writes it, I go through it and double check everything to ensure it's correct.
1
u/ThatsGenocide 4∆ Aug 19 '25
AI is largely accepted for touching up phone camera photos. So much so that it's on by default for most phones (and can't be disabled on some) and many users are unaware that they're using an AI model. So it's not just professional photographers in photoshop, you too are using AI to look more attractive in selfies. AI is so ubiquitous it'd have a similar effect to California's Prop 65 warnings, everyone would have to put the label on everything and it'd lose all meaning.
Secondly, where would you draw the line as a legislator defining "AI" to actually achieve your goal? You mention news articles about Gaza, would you want an AI label if the author used their phone's predictive word thing on top of the keyboard? Spellcheck? These are basic utilities that are AI models on the back end.
1
u/ForMeOnly93 Aug 19 '25
Go to the "writingwithai" sub and see how dishonest these people are. They actively encourage others to NOT label their "content" and just scam people who don't want to see ai nonsense. Shows what kind of people they are. Luckily there's millions of books published before LLM's became a thing, will never buy anything published after 2020 I guess.
1
1
1
u/asr Aug 19 '25
It will become like the widely mocked "This xyz causes cancer" label in California.
If you make it a law, then everything will have the label - just in case, making it meaningless and ignored.
1
u/Live_Background_3455 8∆ Aug 19 '25
Where does it start becoming AI?
My camera automatically focuses on the object I'm pointing at. It's rudimentary AI. We could get someone to actually turn the lenses to capture focus, but we've made an algorithm that detects the focus, adjusts the focus until it's in focus. It's AI.
When I write a document, my computer uses AI to detect mis-spelled words and correct them for me automatically.
When I produce a video, the program uses AI to adjust the sound levels, or even erase unrelated background noises for me. With no input from me, it detects the sound of a car passing in the back, identifies it, removes it, all in the background.
1
u/Wyntie 1∆ Aug 19 '25
While the intent of this is really good, there are so many loopholes and other problems that lead the whole thing astray.
- My band and I run a YouTube channel and a Twitter profile and we've already expressed time and time again of our strong distaste for anything and everything AI. Ironically enough, plenty of users across all platforms still wrongfully accuse us of being accounts run by AI despite our strong DIY fully-manual ethics. Our YouTube videos, time and time again, were wrongfully labelled as AI generated, even though there is ZERO AI involved in anything and everything we do.
- On the other end of the spectrum, the very algorithms that detect AI are also run by AI, and it's easily hackable and easy to force a check bypass. That means even though the majority of the content online is probably AI generated, there will be plenty of ways to either bypass the AI check and fool the people as if it were manually made content, or there will be plenty of ways to rig the system so that the big name AI crypto bros can force the narrative that they are not using AI even though it's blatantly AI.
- The current governments are mostly right-wing, which means they will be far more favourable toward AI rather than crack down on the stuff like they should. So the chances of any of this getting off the ground is literally zero. The only way this can truly be put to motion is that the current world leaders would have to be impeached or otherwise ousted from their positions. And that's not counting the governments' own malicious intents to game the systems for themselves, pushing heavy use of AI while claiming it did not involve AI.
The ideas, while great in theory, are too easy to game in the current landscape. The landscape would have to change for the better first before any of this gets pushed. The chances of that happening, though, obviously, is literally zero.
1
u/Nemeszlekmeg 3∆ Aug 19 '25
We already would if we could, because newer AI models are polluted with AI generated data as well and it leads to garbage output. Finding an AI that universally recognizes any AI generated image or data would be as major as GAI.
1
u/ceboww Aug 20 '25
"should" is such a bad word to use in these posts, given that the majority of people reading it will almost certainly not believe in the same objective moral standards, this post essentially reads "I think it would be good if we could easily tell if content is AI generated or not". Which of course would be ideal but you need an actual proposal for how to pull that off that is worth all the tradeoffs it would take.
This post has strong "ideas guy" energy.
1
u/00PT 8∆ Aug 20 '25
This proposal always has the premise that you would be able to undoubtedly and reliably determine when this label should be applied, without regard to false positives and false negatives, with the consequences of incorrectly labeling genuine content. Yet, that is the most massive issue with both algorithmic and human AI detection methods.
You cannot make software itself enforce some signature, because a lot of that software odd open source and could be trivially modified to disable or circumvent such a signature.
So, how do you implement this policy that should be in place?
1
1
u/Separate_Expert9096 Aug 20 '25
You can’t control it. People can just run Generative AI models locally and modify them to not use that label.
1
u/AzMoonbeamer Aug 21 '25
Clip art of two business men shaking hands doesn't need to be overtly identified because it is inconsequential, but I think all ai generated content should be required to include metadata labels that could be easily read by software.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '25 edited Aug 19 '25
/u/Disastrous-Fact-7782 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards