> My preference would be for generative content to be disclosed as such. I am aware of no law that does this.
What you asked for was a space without generative content. If you had a space where generative content is labeled but not restricted in any way (e.g. there are no tools to hide it) then it wouldn't be that. If the space itself does wish to restrict generative content then why can't you have that right now?
> Why did we pass the FFDCA for disclosures of what's in our food?
Because we know how to test it to see if the disclosures are accurate but those tests aren't cost effective for most consumers, so the label provides useful information and can be meaningfully enforced.
> It seems inevitable to me that without some sort affirmative disclosure, generative AI will follow the same path. It'll just get mixed into everything we consume online, with no way for us to avoid that.
This will happen regardless of disclosure unless it's prohibited, and even then people will just lie about it because there is an incentive to do so and it's hard to detect.
> You are saying here that some companies would break the law and attempt various reputation-laundering schemes to circumvent it. That does seem likely; I am not as convinced as you that it would work well.
It will be a technical battle between companies that don't want it on their service and try to detect it against spammers who want to spam. The effectiveness of a law would be directly related to what it would take for the government to prove that someone is violating it, but what are they going to use to do that at scale which the service itself can't?
> I am not optimistic that doing nothing will be considered acceptable by the general public, especially once the effects of generative AI are felt in force.
So you're proposing something which is useless but mostly harmless to satisfy demand for Something Must Be Done. That's fine, but I still wouldn't expect it to be very effective.
What you asked for was a space without generative content. If you had a space where generative content is labeled but not restricted in any way (e.g. there are no tools to hide it) then it wouldn't be that. If the space itself does wish to restrict generative content then why can't you have that right now?
> Why did we pass the FFDCA for disclosures of what's in our food?
Because we know how to test it to see if the disclosures are accurate but those tests aren't cost effective for most consumers, so the label provides useful information and can be meaningfully enforced.
> It seems inevitable to me that without some sort affirmative disclosure, generative AI will follow the same path. It'll just get mixed into everything we consume online, with no way for us to avoid that.
This will happen regardless of disclosure unless it's prohibited, and even then people will just lie about it because there is an incentive to do so and it's hard to detect.
> You are saying here that some companies would break the law and attempt various reputation-laundering schemes to circumvent it. That does seem likely; I am not as convinced as you that it would work well.
It will be a technical battle between companies that don't want it on their service and try to detect it against spammers who want to spam. The effectiveness of a law would be directly related to what it would take for the government to prove that someone is violating it, but what are they going to use to do that at scale which the service itself can't?
> I am not optimistic that doing nothing will be considered acceptable by the general public, especially once the effects of generative AI are felt in force.
So you're proposing something which is useless but mostly harmless to satisfy demand for Something Must Be Done. That's fine, but I still wouldn't expect it to be very effective.