977
New California law requires AI to tell you it’s AI (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
119 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 45 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm stoked to see the legal definition of "AI". I'm sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year 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."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What about my if else AI algorithm?

    It's not really an llm

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent