• atopi@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    155·
    4 days ago

    I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.

    If people thought “its impossible to catch everyone so why bother trying to catch anyone at all” when making laws, no laws would exist

    • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
      1·
      7 hours ago

      There’s a difference between “not being able to catch everyone” and having effectively no way to catch anyone.

      And yes, unfortunately there are plenty of laws with the same issue (especially here and in the past decade or two) and it sucks - it only teaches people to ignore rules and a lot of them make you a criminal for no reason.

    • aski3252@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 days ago

      But the issue is that in practise, there is no viable way to verify wether or not AI has been used at all. In other words, the disclosure of AI use entirely depends on the person providing the code, wether disclosure is mandated or not.

      If there was enforcment to disclose AI use, it would create a false assumption that code which claims no AI use, is verified to contain mo AI use, which again, cannot be verified by anyone.

      So it’s not that it’s hard to enforce, it’s not that it’s impossible to enforce 100%, it’s that there currently is no viable way to enforce it at all.