Furthermore, it seems unenforceable. As AI becomes more sophisticated (if this isn't the case already), it will be virtually impossible to prove mislabelling.

I have written a number of documents recently that are AI assisted but definitely my own work. I use the LLM to help me cross reference topics, clean up some of the language, improve the flow and prepare for the potential follow-up discussions but the arguments and recommendations are still mine. Is this AI or not?

Side note: I just prepared a recommendation for an org change and had the AI argue against it, as well as provide responses. Some were good and some were weak but it was extremely useful and quite fun.

This time, I figured I'll use GPT-4 to help me write the perfect text. I described the details of the event, my relationship to the invitee (inb4: without any kind of PII, of course), the style, tone and context of the desired text, and asked GPT-4 to generate suggestions. I went back and forth with it, asking it to generate more variants of a specific suggestions, then taught it a simple markup for editing and asked to iterate on specific words and sentences, until I was somewhat satisfied with the result.

Then I asked my wife for her idea, and she quickly wrote a little text of her own. Only afterwards, I showed her the best (to me) of GPT-4 texts. We then mixed the sentences from both together, creating a final work that's 50% OG, perfectly clean text written by my wife, and 50% the output of GPT-4 (with me guiding it).

Is that text a work of AI? Or of a human? Or both? Is it even 50% AI and 50% human, given that the AI part were created from my input, and then edited by my telling GPT-4 what to change, and then finally approved by me using my own judgement?

Does a random website sharing invitation templates on-line have a copyright case, if a couple sentences from our text matched something of theirs? What if it wasn't the AI part that matched?

Where is the line?

0: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/9116836?hl=en&co=GENI...

So no, I don't believe there will be regulation on labelling "AI" derived content, but there will be a drive to label and certify "organic content".

People who boast that their company is <insert identity here> owned do that, because their product can't compete otherwise.

Content mills existed long before AI. Clickbait existed long before AI. Fake news and misinformation existed long before AI.

AI will empower things like that, but it isn't at the core of the problem.

As a user, I care that content is truthful, useful, and/or entertaining. I care that it isn't presented in a misleading way, and I care that it doesn't cause harm (hate, misinformation, etc.) - What I don't care about is who or what created it.

I think a bigger step in the right direction for society would be to empower certain groups like journalists in ways that they don't have to compete with all the crap out there.