• Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 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.

      • gsfraley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 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.