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.
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
979 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
76072 readers
2453 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm stoked to see the legal definition of "AI". I'm sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.
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."
load more comments
(2 replies)
Its insane how a predictive chat bot model is called AI
I mean, we call the software that runs computer players in games AI, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The AI chatbot brainrot is way worse tbh.someone legit said to me why don't chatgpt cure cancer like wtf
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
USA is run by capitalist grifters. There is no objective meaning under this regime. It's all just misleading buzzwords and propaganda.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But Peter Thiel said regulating AI will bring the biblical apocalypse. ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ
Nice.
That’s exactly what an LLM trained on Reddit would say.
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.
Are you AI?
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
So does the EU AI act
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They're probably not super fond of the idea of AI not being allowed to be deployed to manipulate people.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
That might end like the cookie popups in the eu...
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.
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.
bleep bloop.. I am a real human being who loves doing human being stuff like breathing and existing
load more comments
(3 replies)
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". Especially after they just ignore the law.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same old corporations will ignore the law, pay a petty fine once a year, and call it the cost of doing business.
If I'm not AI, can I lie and pretend that I'm AI? I'm AI, btw.
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
I am of the firm opinion that if a machine is "speaking" to me then it must sound a cartoon robot. No exceptions!
load more comments
(3 replies)
Will someone please tell California that "AI" doesn't exist?
This is how politicians promote a grift by pretending to regulate it.
Worthless politicians making worthless laws.
Be sure to tell this to "AI". It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.
How do you enforce this
What if it's foreign AI ?
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.
And the sky is blue
view more: next ›