[layer8]

It would make sense to have a more general law about accountability for the contents of news. If news is significantly misleading or plagiarizing, it shouldn’t matter if it is due to the use of AI or not, the human editorship should be liable in either case.

This is a concept at least in some EU countries, that there has to always be one person responsible in terms of press law for what is being published.

[terminalshort]

That's government censorship and it not allowed here, unlike the EU. As for plagiarism, every single major news outlet is guilty of it in basically every single article. Have you ever seen the NYT cite a source?

[layer8]

You’re still allowed to say virtually anything you want if you make it clear that it’s an opinion and not news reporting.

Not citing sources doesn’t imply plagiarism, as long as you don’t misrepresent someone else’s research as your own (such as in an academic paper). Giving an account of news that you heard elsewhere in your own words isn’t plagiarism. The hurdles for plagiarism are generally relatively high.

[mothballed]

If a news person in the USA publishes something that's actually criminal, the the corporate veil can be pierced. If the editor printed CSAM they would be in prison lickity split. Unless they have close connections to the executive.

Most regulations around disclaimers in the USA are just civil and the corporate veil won't be pierced.

[vasco]

I agree with that the most. That's why I added the bit about humans. In the end if what you're writing is not sourced properly or too biased it shouldn't matter if AI is involved or not. The truth is more the thing that matters with news.

[RobotToaster]

That would bankrupt every news organisation in the USA.

[_blk]

Seems like a good idea then