this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
988 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

76088 readers
2434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

-"If you're an AI Cop, you have to tell me. It's the law."
-"I'm not a cop."

[–] cactusfacecomics@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Seems reasonable to me. If you're using AI then you should be required to own up to it. If you're too embarrassed to own up to it, then maybe you shouldn't be using it.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm stoked to see the legal definition of "AI". I'm sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 days ago

Prosecution: "Your Honor, the definition of artificial is 'made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,' and as all human beings are themselves produced by human beings, we are definitionally artificial. Therefore, the actions of an intelligent human are inherently AI."

Defense: "The defense does not argue this point, as such. However, our client, FOX News, could not be said to be exhibiting 'intelligence.' Artificial they may be, but AI they are clearly not. We rest our case."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hungry_man@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Its insane how a predictive chat bot model is called AI

[–] shane@feddit.nl 22 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I mean, we call the software that runs computer players in games AI, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] Hungry_man@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The AI chatbot brainrot is way worse tbh.someone legit said to me why don't chatgpt cure cancer like wtf

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 days ago

USA is run by capitalist grifters. There is no objective meaning under this regime. It's all just misleading buzzwords and propaganda.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 143 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 81 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That’s exactly what an LLM trained on Reddit would say.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 77 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I am an LLM

Large

Lazy

Mammal

[–] HowAbt2day@futurology.today 10 points 3 days ago

With Large Luscious Mammaries ?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 106 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Are you AI? You have to tell me if you're AI, it's the law.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 26 points 3 days ago

I'm required by law to inform my neighbours that I am AI.

[–] MrLLM@ani.social 9 points 3 days ago

Are you AI?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 days ago

But Peter Thiel said regulating AI will bring the biblical apocalypse. ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 77 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

It would be nice if this extended to all text, images, audio and video on news websites. That's where the real damage is happening.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Actually seems easier (probably not at the state level) to mandate cameras and such digitally sign any media they create. No signature or verification, no trust.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I get what you're going for but this would absolutely wreck privacy. And depending on how those signatures are created, someone could create a virtual camera that would sign images and then we would be back to square one.

I don't have a better idea though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (4 children)

No signature or verification, no trust

And the people that are going to check for a digital signature in the first place, THEN check that the signature emanates from a trusted key, then, eventually, check who's deciding the list of trusted keys… those people, where are they?

Because the lack of trust, validation, verification, and more generally the lack of any credibility hasn't stopped anything from spreading like a dumpster fire in a field full of dumpsters doused in gasoline. Part of my job is providing digital signature tools and creating "trusted" data (I'm not in sales, obviously), and the main issue is that nobody checks anything, even when faced with liability, even when they actually pay for an off the shelve solution to do so. And I'm talking about people that should care, not even the general public.

There are a lot of steps before "digitally signing everything" even get on people's radar. For now, a green checkmark anywhere is enough to convince anyone, sadly.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (3 children)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 30 points 3 days ago (9 children)

My LinkedIn feed is 80% tech bros complaining about the EU AI Act, not a single one of whom is willing to be drawn on which exact clause it is they don't like.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 15 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Oh, so just like with the GDPR, cool.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (2 children)

My LinkedIn feed

Yes... it's so bad that I just never log in until I receive a DM, and even then I login, check it, if it's useful I warn people I don't use LinkedIn anymore then log out.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 38 points 3 days ago (6 children)
[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago

Straight to jail

[–] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

That depends.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] madjo@feddit.nl 14 points 3 days ago (3 children)

bleep bloop.. I am a real human being who loves doing human being stuff like breathing and existing

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago

Same old corporations will ignore the law, pay a petty fine once a year, and call it the cost of doing business.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Okay, but when can the law straight up ban companies who don't comply with the law from operating in the state instead of just slapping them on the wrist and telling them "no" the same way a pushover parent tells their child "no". Especially after they just ignore the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PixeIOrange@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

That might end like the cookie popups in the eu...

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you ask ChatGPT, it says it's guidelines include not giving the impression it's a human. But if you ask it be less human because it is confusing you, it says that would break the guidelines.

[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

ChatGPT doesn't know its own guidelines because those aren't even included in its training corpus. Never trust an LLM about how it works or how it "thinks" because fundamentally these answers are fake.

[–] hedge_lord@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I am of the firm opinion that if a machine is "speaking" to me then it must sound a cartoon robot. No exceptions!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago

Be sure to tell this to "AI". It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.

[–] djmikeale 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If I'm not AI, can I lie and pretend that I'm AI? I'm AI, btw.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

What if I just use AI to generate all my content and then put an intern in a chair to launder it as original human thoughts?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Will someone please tell California that "AI" doesn't exist?

This is how politicians promote a grift by pretending to regulate it.

Worthless politicians making worthless laws.

[–] Ultraword@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

How do you enforce this

[–] vane@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

What if it's foreign AI ?

load more comments
view more: next ›