FCC Chair Proposes Disclosure Rules For AI-Generated Content In Political Ads (qz.com) 37
FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has proposed (PDF) disclosure rules for AI-generated content used in political ads. "If adopted, the proposal would look into whether the FCC should require political ads on radio and TV to disclose when there is AI-generated content," reports Quartz. From the report: The FCC is seeking comment on whether on-air and written disclosure should be required in broadcasters' political files when AI-generated content is used in political ads; proposing that the rules apply to both candidates and issue advertisements; requesting comment on what a specific definition of AI-generated comment should look like; and proposing that disclosure rules be applied to broadcasters and entities involved in programming, such as cable operators and radio providers.
The proposed disclosure rules do not prohibit the use of AI-generated content in political ads. The FCC has authority through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to make rules around political advertising. If the proposal is adopted, the FCC will take public comment on the rules. "As artificial intelligence tools become more accessible, the Commission wants to make sure consumers are fully informed when the technology is used," Rosenworcel said in a statement. "Today, I've shared with my colleagues a proposal that makes clear consumers have a right to know when AI tools are being used in the political ads they see, and I hope they swiftly act on this issue."
The proposed disclosure rules do not prohibit the use of AI-generated content in political ads. The FCC has authority through the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to make rules around political advertising. If the proposal is adopted, the FCC will take public comment on the rules. "As artificial intelligence tools become more accessible, the Commission wants to make sure consumers are fully informed when the technology is used," Rosenworcel said in a statement. "Today, I've shared with my colleagues a proposal that makes clear consumers have a right to know when AI tools are being used in the political ads they see, and I hope they swiftly act on this issue."
Frist Psot (Score:1)
Re: Frist Psot (Score:2)
FCC shouldn't be regulating content, period. This sounds more like FTC material.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no AI in this political advertisement. The person you are about to listen to actually is that dumb."
Re: (Score:2)
People on here will say anything. "Charlie Brown had hoes". No he didn't. That's not true.
How about no (Score:1)
Re: How about no (Score:1)
Most video and picture editing software falls under the definition. Smart crop on Photoshop, stitching audio and leveling, automatic color balance could all be defined as AI. We are already using lots of so-called AI for several decades, the definition is poor so they should clarify what they mean.
Re: (Score:1)
How about we ban your content? There's about an 80% probability this was AI generated content according to my fact checkers.
"Russian bot" logic is exactly what was done to American citizens en masse discussing vaccines and the the last presidential election on social media and other channels, illegally under the coercion by the federal government. They were censored, half the time they had no idea their message wasn't even be heard by others.
The easiest way to shut down any argument is to claim you're a b
Transparency as opposed to fines and jail time? (Score:1)
I say ban all use of A.I. in the generation of political advertising. Make it a criminally liable offense, with penalties and jail time. Make the punishment fit the crime, but the crime should be considered nigh unto treason. Ban the use of Windows 11/12, Co-Pilot,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The "Freedom of Speech" in combination with the "Freedom of the Press", implies, in a political advertising context, that the content being provided is real and not A.I. generated.
A.I. generated content is the visual equivalent of straw man nonsense, and has disproportionately significant risk to cross the lines of speech that are not constitutionally protected. Where is the line blurred between propaganda, and defamation and hate speech?
How can a society work to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A.I. Generated imagery and voices, however, are implicitly false in nature. A.I. Generated text is highly suspect, and is implicitly presumed to be false and not scraped.
The Federal Trade Commission has been granted the authority to oversee "Truth in Advertising" with regards to commerce. T
Re: (Score:1)
The federal government has no legal authority to enforce defamation laws.
The First Amendment recognizes the right to lie. You can lie all day and all night. You can bake a lie cake and decorate it with lie frosting. No citizen of this nation has any legal duty to tell the truth in the normal course of business.
And Congress has no legal authority to say otherwise.
Props to the little communist Reddit punk who downvoted the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
Back to the discussion, U.S. Code Title 18, Chapter 47, Code 1001, does effectively prohibit lying in any matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the Legislative branch of the government. Which subsequently does not fall under "citizen in the normal course of business". This establishes that under specific circumstances, lying is a federal crime, and is not protected speech under the first amendment.
Political adver
Re: (Score:1)
Under the First Amendment, 18 U.S.C. 1001 is unconstitutional. For openers, it places every citizen under oath involuntarily, which is a flagrant violation of both the First and Fifth Amendments. It not only illegally compels speech, but it automatically makes you a witness against yourself even if you aren't accused of a crime.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate speech. There are no such powers granted to Congress in Article I Section 8. Even if there were a means by which speech cou
3D Rendering is not AI (Score:1)
My more direct line of reasoning is that regulating A.I. does not infringe upon free speech. There is nothing intrinsic about "Freedom of Speech" that requires the usage of A.I.
3D Rendering, like cartoons before it, typically retains tell tale signs of artificiality. The ability to discern between 3D Rendering often referred to a
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing intrinsic about "Freedom of Speech" that requires the usage of A.I.
There's nothing intrinsic about freedom of speech that requires any specific tool.
"A.I. Generated Content" is a tool that is primarily suited to produce "false, fictitious, or fraudulent" content, and as such should be banned from usage in political campaigns altogether.
Political ads are exempt from [brookings.edu] FTC rules about false advertising. And you really wouldn't want the government to have the power to ban false political advertising because the opportunities for the government to abuse it against their political opponents are very, very, obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
This is not the same as Political Ads being exempt from charges of defamation or "false, fictitious, or fraudulent" content that may fall under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch.
Political Ads may not be able to be banned before hand, but that does not mean that the ads are not subjec
Re:Found in the Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
The First Amendment recognizes the right to lie.
Yup, it sure does.
You can lie all day and all night.
Yup, and many people do.
No citizen of this nation has any legal duty to tell the truth in the normal course of business.
Yeah, about that. It's called truth in advertising [ftc.gov]. So yes, every citizen has a legal duty to tell the truth in the normal course of business. It's why people go to jail for fraud and scams and bait-and-switch, and whole host of other lies when doing business.
And Congress has no legal authority to say otherwise.
The Constitution says otherwise. Article 1, Section 8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Look, we get it. You want to lie about everything and not get called out for it. And that's fine. Then anyone else gets to lie about you and claim you're fucking your black, Jewish boyfriend who works at a military abortion clinic. And if anything happens because of that lie, so be it. You can't do anything about it.
Re: (Score:1)
It's why people go to jail for fraud and scams and bait-and-switch
We're not talking about fraud here. We're talking about political speech. Fraud is a crime which must have several elements including intent.
The Constitution says otherwise
Correct. It says "no law."
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government has no legal authority to enforce defamation laws.
The First Amendment recognizes the right to lie. You can lie all day and all night. You can bake a lie cake and decorate it with lie frosting. No citizen of this nation has any legal duty to tell the truth in the normal course of business.
The first amendment protects freedom of speech. The freedom to communicate thoughts and ideas is distinct from the freedom to do whatever you please.
You can't for example lie to a security guard at a cake factory to facilitate your partner in crime stealing all the frosting. That isn't freedom of speech just because you are speaking to the guard. What you are actually doing is carrying out a theft.
The problem in practice is you have to be able to disambiguate between someone peddling nonsense because the
Re: (Score:1)
The first amendment protects freedom of speech. The freedom to communicate thoughts and ideas is distinct from the freedom to do whatever you please.
The other description for that legal theory is "all is forbidden except what we approve." It is about as un-American as you can get.
You do have the right to do whatever you please as long as it isn't criminal and as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That theory is called "You are limited only by what is forbidden."
You can't for example lie to a security guard at a cake factory to facilitate your partner in crime stealing all the frosting.
Correct, because to do so would be engaging in a criminal conspiracy.
But if you walked up to that security guard and said "you should vote for my grandmama because she defeated
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment protects freedom of speech. The freedom to communicate thoughts and ideas is distinct from the freedom to do whatever you please.
The other description for that legal theory is "all is forbidden except what we approve." It is about as un-American as you can get.
I disagree. Just because something is not free speech does not mean it should or should not be legally protected. This simply means it is distinct from free speech provision of 1st amendment.
But if you walked up to that security guard and said "you should vote for my grandmama because she defeated the Bolivian Air Force with a hot air balloon and a mirror" you cannot be prosecuted nor can you be prevented from making that statement. In fact, you could produce fake footage of your grandmama in action to go with your statement and it would still be perfectly legal because it is your right to say whatever you wish under the First Amendment.
It is the responsibility of the security guard to evaluate the integrity of your statement and footage. It is not the job of the federal government. In fact the federal government is specifically forbidden from being involved at all because the words used are:
NO LAW.
Again speaking isn't the issue. It is underlying actions that are relevant. You can communicate any thoughts or ideas you damn well please but you can't do whatever you damn well please.
If you set out to win an election by slandering your opponents and deliberately spew disinformation about your own candidate you ar
Re: (Score:2)
You're an asshole. Fraud is a legal term, and civil or criminally punishable.
So, no, shithead, you can't lie all you want.
Re: (Score:2)
This one seems more akin to the nutritional information labels (compelled speech) food companies are required to include. Also it's optional, you are not required to include the warning that your content is AI generated, in the same manner that you've never been forced to attach a nutrition label to your food. In any case, here's another restriction on speech: I can't choose as my medium of speech to write in burning gasoline on your lawn. Help, help! I'm being repressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, nothing is being prohibited. Whomever makes these ads are free to continue to make the ads all they want. The only thing this disclosure does is notify people the ad is AI generated. That's it.
Now stop your whining that you can't lie and be called out for it.
Intelligence (Score:2)
My proposal is to get actual intelligence into those ads before considering an artificial source. For me though it doesn't matter. I've been blocking ads for over 25 years now.
Why AI? (Score:2)
What about photoshop, photo realistic render, deceptive photographs...etc. Why just AI? Why doesn't the FCC just come out and say political ads have to disclose when they are lying or else?
Re: Why AI? (Score:1)
First of all, you could consider Photoshop AI, people have been using the term to describe magic in software since at least the early 90s.
And second, the government regulating political speech only cuts one way, as we see today, the DOJ and FCC being a part of the executive branch will not interpret these laws to prosecute the sitting president for any reason, but will for their political opponent under any pretense. Obviously you wouldnâ(TM)t go after your boss as you would after your competition.
That
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, you could consider Photoshop AI, people have been using the term to describe magic in software since at least the early 90s.
If you define the use of image filtering / editing software as AI then everything is AI.
I believe it generally understood photoshop means a human creating and editing an image with drawing and editing tools. AI / deep fake is a human using neural nets to generate or manipulate images for them.
And second, the government regulating political speech only cuts one way, as we see today, the DOJ and FCC being a part of the executive branch will not interpret these laws to prosecute the sitting president for any reason, but will for their political opponent under any pretense. Obviously you wouldnÃ(TM)t go after your boss as you would after your competition.
That is why historically regulations that limit free speech is not a law and cannot apply to political speech as you must be able to challenge any regulation and ideally outlaw it.
Of course the charitable explanation to all of this is an attempt to move the low hanging fruit out of reach so people have to actually work to create deceptive images.
Even in that case this is a bad idea as any label
Re: (Score:1)
It's not me declaring it AI, there is no good definition for AI and Adobe has definitely had "intelligent" and "content aware" in their box software going back a long time. The 1990s every box of software had an "intelligent" label on it. I remember the OCR software that came with my SCSI scanner having "AI" back in the day, video games going back to Red Alert and Unreal labeled computer opponents as AI. Obama in 2008 had video game "AI" spreading viral ads.
If a deceptive message is declared illegal, then t
All ads are (Score:2)