273
submitted 10 months ago by chagall@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

Alternative link: https://archive.is/qgEzK

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 22 points 10 months ago

What baffles me is that those lawmakers think they can just legislate any problem with law.

So okay, California requires it. None of the other states do. None of the rest of the Internet does. It doesn't fix anything.

They act like the Internet is like cable and it's all american companies that "provides" services to end users.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 36 points 10 months ago

Whilst I agree with the other op, this point is just wrong.

Replace "california" in your argument with "European union" and the whole thing just crumbles away. State legislation absolutely has a wider effect than the state it originates in.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Inb4 AI devs just slap a generic “click this box to confirm you are not in California” verification on their shit.

[-] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

If the server isn't even in California, would it even apply/be enforceable to them?

[-] 50gp@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

so youre saying nothing should be done? great idea

[-] gsfraley@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Sure, but this is less than nothing. It literally applies 0 friction against AI and is completely and totally unenforceable. AND it's a laughing stock for everyone and sucks the oxygen out of better AI regulation groups and think-tanks.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago

Why? If a California corporation is pumping out AI content and it doesn't have watermarks, why can't this be enforced? It's not an all use solution, but I fail to see how it fails completely.

[-] FatCrab@lemmy.one 1 points 10 months ago

This is actually an effective measure when you sit down to actually think about this from a policy perspective. Right now, the biggest issue with AI generated content for the corporate side is that there is no IP right in the generated content. Private enterprise generally doesn't like distributing content that it doesn't have ability to exercise complete control over. However, distributing generated content without marking it as generated reduces that risk outlay potentially enough to make the value calculus swing in favor of its use. People will just assume there are rights in the material. Now, if you force this sort of marking, that heavily alters the calculus.

Now people will say wah wah wah no way to really enforce. People will lie. Etc. But that's true for MOST of our IP laws. Nevertheless, they prove effective at accomplishing many of their intents. The majority of private businesses are not going to intentionally violate regulatory laws of they can help it and, when they do, it's more often than not because they think they've found a loophole but were wrong. And yes, that's even accounting for and understanding that there are many examples of illegal corporate activity.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

They call it the California effect for a reason.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42097/1/__Libfile_repository_Content_Neumayer, E_Neumayer_Does _California_effect_2012_Neumayer_Does _California_effect_2012.pdf

this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
273 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

59708 readers
2033 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS