I guess a warning that says "contains AI slop" would be too much to ask for.
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
392 points (99.7% liked)
Technology
85333 readers
4629 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I wonder if Hatsune Miku ads in New York need a disclaimer after this change...
There are specific carve outs listed in the law to exempt ads for movies, television shows, streaming content, video games and other works that feature synthetic performers in the entire work.
That seems like a pretty big carve out.
I was wondering about that.
So basically it's for deepfakes and otherwise worthless. That's disappointing.
"Lawyer said this would have applied to animated films"
I'd assume it's for things like (e.g. Pixar) films, or stuff like GTA6 where there obviously isn't any actual people in the end result but hoping they've actually spelled out that constraint in the law.
That's my hope too. Basically you can't pretend to use real people if someone would reasonably think they are real people.
But I hope they've worded it well.
Any ad that isn't for a piece of fiction does not have any excuse to use fictitious performers
I agree - ads that depict dentists, firefighters, etc to sell things should use real dentists, firefighters, etc. not actors pretending.
I meant fake persons, not real persons faking their jobs, but I do agree with you.
I know. I just think it's disingenuous to disapprove of fakery using AI but approve of fakery people do on their own. To me it's like saying you're evil if you use a ladder instead of asking a tall person to reach things for you.
Or maybe actors and other workers don't want to be replaced by some tech that doesn't pay taxes. Just one of many problems with AI.
As someone with a doctorate in bullshittery I must take issue with your position here good sir.
In before
We had no idea the performer in the advertisement for our product was AI-generated. We outsource our marketing to a third party agency and had no involvement in the production of this content.
This is likely primarily targeting political ads. It's pretty hard to argue this if you made a political ad with a generated imposter of your opponent saying something they never said.
The American economy runs on "I didn't ask" subcontracting
Yeah, that'll work.
Edit: Truth in advertising .. there's a novel concept.
Every ad will have a disclaimer. Like the invest in stock markets at your own risk or this thing may cause cancer
AI is the death of truth
Disclaimer: this comment may or may not have been generated by AI
Just like every website has a cookie alert. Meaningless, annoying and extra work for everyone.
The amount of times I got a comment for one of my personal sites that told me I’d be breaking the law, because I had no cookie banner…
No! I’m not breaking the law - and if you had investigated for like 2s before notifying me about it, you’d have realized that
a) it’s a static site and
b) it uses no cookies
So… even no cookie banners is more work for everyone involved apparently.
Laws are stupid because people break them
Yes! No laws! Everything should be legal!!!1
Not at all.
A law that isn't enforceable or actually enforced is stupid.
This is in my opinion a good example of a stupid law.
How much Mar-a-Lago face do you need to be considered a "synthetic performer"?
When your friends from college no longer recognize you.
Sure yea they gonna lie in your face and replace the one who said they must.
Needs a minimum pixel ratio size.
Actually seems ironic since they've never had to label actors as synthetic housewives, synthetic grocery clerks, synthetic friends, or anything else. Why has it always been acceptable to present unreal scenarios to convince people to buy stuff?
When was the last time a digital NPC could have conceivably done real world laundry or ate a real world sandwich? At least a meatspace actor could actually do things that no AI could.
Actors onscreen usually don't really eat the food. It's usually fake food that's been created to look perfect, because real food doesn't do well under camera lighting. Fake food can look fresh all day. And if they bit into a sandwich they'd need a new sandwich for each retake. The actors would also gradually get full, and spills would cause costume and set problems. Some directors do real food but generally it's just asking for trouble. And actors certainly don't do real laundry or other domestic things on camera lol. Sppliances usually aren't even plugged in. It's all phony.
There was one famous heartwarming Coke commercial where a kid gives his Coke to a tired football player, who downs it and then tosses the awestruck kid his jersey. I remember the player saying they did 15 or 16 takes and he drank the whole Coke each time.