Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
The 4As, as the organization is better known, said in one blog post that it would hurt advertisers by “injecting compliance uncertainty into the advertising process, burdening brands (and their agencies) who advertise in New York and undermining creative and technological innovation.”
Yeah no it won't. The only uncertainty is whether it's worth alienating customers to save a few bucks on performers, now that you can't get away with it any more.
Will they even save money? Once the techlords start charging what they actually need to, I'm not sure they will.
That said, the idea of hurting 'brands' and their ad agencies gave me a little bit of a chub if I'm honest.
They shouldn't be allowed to call AI-generated content "performers" at all.
This is my only qualm with this. AI slop is not made by "synthetic performers". We shouldn't be elevating it with that wording, which sounds like it's trying to give agency to the slop.
My only complaint about this is that the fine looks too low, unless it's getting applied each separate time the ad appears somewhere.
Apply it for each frame they’re rendered in.
Another complaint is that enforcement might be difficult. It will be up to the state to prove that an advertiser used AI-generated performers in their ad.
In some cases that will be obvious, but in other cases it might be difficult for anyone to even notice.
They should have to provide a list of performers. For the ads to be published.
Well, now you need someone whose job it is just to check the lists for every advertiser ... maybe a whole team of people if you're going to actually follow up on each one to ensure that the people listed are real people and actually are the people shown in the ads.
Maybe this team is paid by a tax on AI companies
It is a problem they generate, so they should pay to sort it out.
You'd think it'd be pretty simple to disprove it's a.i., though.
The synths are coming for your acting jobs
I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies.
So glad to see the tide shifting against AI.
It won’t go away, but hopefully it’ll stop getting shoved down everyone’s throats.
Synthetic performers are defined under state law as “digitally-created media that appear as a real person.” The law applies to ads in any medium.
Ok, but what about other kinds of a.i. generated performers, like animated ones? I reckon anything a.i. generated should be labelled as such.
I think the biggest concern with this bill is not knowing whether it's real people or not. Cartoon characters are not usually mistaken for real people.
I get that. It just seems arbitrarily limited to me. And voice actors are real people too.
I suppose that depends on the goal behind the labeling. If the main goal is to call out when AI-generated content was used in lieu of paying actors and animation artists, then yes, they should also be forced to disclose when voice-over and non-realistic animated characters were AI generated.
If, however, the goal is to simply inform consumers that the person they're looking at on the screen is not a real human, then I don't think those things are a big concern.
It's not really clear from the story what the intended goal is.
Not like it's any more or less representative of reality than pre-ai ads.
I'd be an alcoholic if alcohol ads were how things really worked.
I'd also be an alcoholic if alcohol ads were how things really worked. I am one now, but I still would be also.
This is to ensure that a 5% fee is collected for a retirement village to be provided for the synthetic performers, once they age out of the game.
I think this is good. People will still watch it anyway, the worst are liars who use AI to make something seem real that isn't. I don't think anyone should be using AI to make a performer that looks extremely realistic.
A $1000 fine is like pennies... How much will it cost to hire a whole cast of performers, vs paying the AI tax? This is a ridiculous performative bullshit law, that even still carves out exceptions for movies and other media. Fuck off with this shit. Do more.