News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
The ad was openly marketed as being created with AI. So, for all those folks who say they "just want AI content to be labelled as such", this is a major reason why there are so many people who refuse to do that. They know it doesn't help.
Slop is slop. It's just nice to have disclosure, too.
Sure, but that disclosure is simply painting a target on themselves. If they're going to be pilloried whether they do it or not then why draw attention? Keeping it unlabelled at least allows for the chance that nobody will notice.
Whilst slop is slop, and should be pilloried as such, cheap, lazy "AI" slop shoild be labeled to indicate that even less attention was paid than usual, and that it was created from stolen assets. This last part is probably the most important part.
And illustrates exactly the point I'm making. If people are going to hate it purely because it's AI, regardless of whether it's labelled or not, then there's every incentive there to simply not label it. It's counterproductive.
Whilst I see your point from the advertisers perspective, ie, misleading the consumer can be profitable, it also makes it all the more necessary for advertisers to be forced, ideally through legislative means, to disclose asset theft. That way they're all on a level playing field, and are disuaded from lieing about it.
That fact that most "AI" output is garbage is not directly relevant, but the sourcing of the training data and lack of human oversight are.
First it would need to be established that generative AI inherently involves "asset theft", which so far has not been the case in the various lawsuits that have reached trial.
Looking at a timeline of cases against various AI companies suggests that's not quite the case. This page had a good overview, showing how cases are being resolved. Some of the recent notable outcomes involve the German courts finding OpenAI violated copyright laws, OpenAI being forced to reveal internal communications about trying to hide a massive dataset of pirated books, and a class action suceeding against Anthropic, but there's a bunch more.
It's important to separate the training AI part from the conventional copyright violation. A lot of these companies downloaded stuff they shouldn't have downloaded and that is a copyright violation in its own right. But the training part has been ruled as fair use in a few prominent cases already, such as the Anthropic one.
Beyond even that, there are generative AIs that were trained entirely on material that the trainer owned the license to outright - Adobe's "Firefly" model, for example.
So I have yet to see it established that generative AI inherently involves "asset theft." You'll have to give me something specific. That page has far too many cases jumbled together covering a whole range of related subjects, some of them not even directly AI-related (I notice one of the first ones in the list is "A federal judge accused a third-party law firm of attempting to “trick” authors out of their record $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement with Anthropic." That's just routine legal shenanigans).
If it has disclosure i avoid it and maybe the brand but i give them bonus points and if its really just something like a placeholder by a single dev/indie then i am able to acrept it somewhat
But if they dont disclose it and notice it myself: its a big ewwww and that nasty ewwww will stick
I hope at least that there are enough of the me type that disclosure is productive
Disclosure could also be a proartive measure to keep "the loud haters" away that try to get others to boycott with them (because i at least would fight the eww ones first)
But of course it can be profitable for companies to get away with undisclosed ai as it may reduce tthe cost and production speed (i think i read that some ai ad needed more human work & time)
Slapping a disclosure doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card if you oppose AI ads in general. The argument of “well now they just won’t tell you” rings a bit hollow.
AI or not the ad in question was dogshit.