[em500]

> I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form.

This is very predictably what's going to happen, and it will be just as useless as Prop 65 or the EU cookie laws or any other mandatory disclaimers.

[layer8]

The EU ePrivacy directive isn’t about disclaimers.

[consp]

The problem is people believe it is. People believe the advertisement industry narrative they are force to show the insane screens and have to make it difficult. Yet they are not, and a reject all must be as easy as accept all (and "legitimate reasons" do not exist, they are either allowed uses and you don't have to ask or they are not).

[codewench]

How is that useless? You adding the warning tells me everything I need to know.

Either you generated it with AI, in which case I can happily skip it, or you _don't know_ if AI was used, in which case you clearly don't care about what you produce, and I can skip it.

The only concern then is people who use AI and don't apply this warning, but given how easy it is to identify AI generated materials you just have to have a good '1-strike' rule and be judicious with the ban hammer.

[SkyBelow]

Because you have to be able to prove it wasn't AI when the law is tested, and keeping records and proof you didn't use AI is going to be really difficult, if at all possible. For little people having fun, unless you poke the wrong bear, it won't matter. But for companies who are constantly the target of lawsuits, expect there to be a new field of unlabeled AI trolling comparable to patent trolling or similar.

We already see this with the California label, it get's applied to things that don't cause cancer because putting the label on is much cheaper than going through to the process to prove that some random thing doesn't cause cancer.

If the government showed up and claimed your comment was AI generated and you had to prove otherwise, how would you?