News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-generated news content. Parent comment

Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by mbreese on Friday February 06, 2026 @10:18AM (#46913875)
None of those bills/laws involve legislating publishing though. This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue, so it going to be tougher to enforce and keep from getting overturned in the courts. The question here are what are the limits the government can have on what a company publishes, regardless of how the content is generated.

IMO, It’s a much tougher problem (legally) than protecting actors from AI infringement on their likeness. AI services are easier to regulate.. published AI generated content, much more difficult.

The article also mentions efforts by news unions of guilds. This might be a more effective mechanism. If a person/union/guild required members to add a tagline in their content/articles, this would have a similar effect - showing what is and what is not AI content without restricting speech.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by tempodox on Friday February 06, 2026 @10:35AM (#46914104)
> This bill would require a disclaimer on something published. That’s a freedom of speech issue

They can publish all they want, they just have to label it clearly. I don’t see how that is a free speech issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by mothballed on Friday February 06, 2026 @10:48AM (#46914273)
Because compelled speech is an insult to free speech just as censored speech is.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by fwip on Friday February 06, 2026 @02:45PM (#46917236)
How do you feel about the fact that manufacturers need to list the ingredients of the food they sell you?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by mothballed on Friday February 06, 2026 @04:51PM (#46918614)
Not thrilled about it, and I personally would rather see them repealed. I will concede compelled speech impositions have been interpreted more generously when they are commercial. I don't necessarily agree with it, but even if we concede they can happen, I hope that distinction is made for commercial vs non-commercial content. Though I'm not thrilled with it happening for either.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by oblio on Sunday February 08, 2026 @06:15PM (#46939604)
I will never understand free speech absolutists.

Ads should be marked, ingredients and components should be listed.

What possible reason would there be for a viewer/customer to not be allowed to find out such obvious info?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by HanShotFirst on Friday February 06, 2026 @11:09AM (#46914585)
Is AI-generated text speech?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by frumplestlatz on Friday February 06, 2026 @12:03PM (#46915314)
It is when a human publishes it. Which is why they're also liable for it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by _blk on Friday February 06, 2026 @02:27PM (#46917039)
I agree in general and that should be the position but it's probably more nuanced than this in practice: who published it when it's a dev that writes a script that just spits junk into the wild or reinforces someone else's troll-speech?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A new bill in New York would require disclaimers on AI-ge... by mbreese on Friday February 06, 2026 @02:59PM (#46917410)
In general, I think LLM content has been found to not be copyrightable, but it would still speech when it's published. It would be the speech of the company publishing it, not the dev that wrote the script. So, ai-junk-news.com is still publishing some kind of speech, even if it was an LLM that wrote it. At least, that would be my interpretataion.
[ Parent | on HN ]