From a “law on the books” perspective, there’s more we could do about commercial speech than non-commercial speech. I bet the courts would back a law mandating disclosure of AI writing in commercial contexts as a way to protect against misleading users (the legal rationale being that people might falsely ascribe human origins to written text). The courts already limit the copyrightability of AI text which decreases the benefits of AI writing in many contexts.
From a “law as lived” perspective, enforcement would be difficult. Perhaps robust whistle blower laws could deter big actors, but reigning in smaller actors would bet very hard.
From a “law on the books” perspective, there’s more we could do about commercial speech than non-commercial speech. I bet the courts would back a law mandating disclosure of AI writing in commercial contexts as a way to protect against misleading users (the legal rationale being that people might falsely ascribe human origins to written text). The courts already limit the copyrightability of AI text which decreases the benefits of AI writing in many contexts.
From a “law as lived” perspective, enforcement would be difficult. Perhaps robust whistle blower laws could deter big actors, but reigning in smaller actors would bet very hard.