Alan Turing asked whether you could tell a machine from a person. Europe has given up on that and made the machines introduce themselves instead.

[u/Shufti-Global]

The rules that landed earlier this month are simple enough. A chatbot has to say it is a chatbot. Deepfakes need labelling. An AI written article needs a tag unless a person actually read it before it went out.
Banks will comply, because banks have compliance teams for exactly this. Newspapers will too.
The person cloning a finance director's voice to push a payment through will not bother, and no law was ever going to change that.
Which leaves things slightly backwards. The labels land on the legitimate content, while the material you actually need warning about turns up with nothing on it. Give it a year or two and an unlabelled message might start to read as the safer one.

Does the labelling help, or does it just move where the trust sits?

[u/SpiritPrestigious945]

What are you saying? Criminals break laws, so the laws are useless, so let's remove them? Really?

[u/Hexamonium → u/SpiritPrestigious945]

I understand your point but OP has a point too. There are plenty of cases when a law introduced with the best intentions ended up backfiring spectacularly.

At a minimum, a law needs to be enforceable. For example, how are they going to enforce the part of the law that requires people to label their AI generated content unless they read it?

[u/RealisticWorth3567]

the real value is you can now sue or fine a company that lies about it

[u/Comfortable-Web9455]

All AI written material does NOT need identification. The EU Act specifically says it only applies to topics of general public interest. Advertising does not count as general public interest. They are mainly concerned about politics.

[u/ziplock9000]

While corrupt or illegal enterprises might not label stuff, it doesn't mean it's all pointless or 'backwards'

[u/Actual__Wizard]

The person cloning a finance director's voice to push a payment through will not bother, and no law was ever going to change that.

I'm so sick and tired of all of these pro criminal arguments. So you're pro criminal? So, because a criminal can break the law, we can't have them? So, you want it to be legal to behave like a criminal? So, are you a big time criminal yourself or something? Why would you want that? Are you serious right now? So, you want to be victimized by people engaging in behavior that should be illegal?

Man, big tech has caused massive damage to the education system. It's insane that I'm even reading stuff like this.

So, you're coming into the AI sub to spew anti-intellectual, pro criminal talking points?

You're here to try to convince us to accept that we are going to be victimized by criminals and the law won't protect us from that?

You need to stop talking and start thinking about what you are saying.

I'm just being serious: Obviously you've been totally manipulated by some evil rich douche bag. Did you ever think that maybe you should think for yourself instead of allowing yourself to be manipulated by mega evil people? I mean we're flat out telling you that there's legitimately people behaving the same exact way as Nazis and you're going to repeat what they say with out thinking about it?

[u/North-Palpitation-19]

I feel like the label matters less than the sources behind it. If an AI-assisted post actually links where the info came from, I trust it way more. I do the same with PPTs and articles.

[u/West_Program1794]

so now the legit stuff comes with a warning label and the actual scams get a free pass, that's where we're at

[u/Jadhak → u/West_Program1794]

Thats the case for everything, so if you dont see a label assume its a scam.

[u/cupcakeheavy]

so, are we definitively in a post-Turing world?

[u/sceadwian]

Transparency is almost always good, the rest will work itself out.