Don’t need to be outlawed, but they need to be labeled. AI-generated content is the future, and it’s not going away. This ad is approved by Pali, with AI-generated materials. In general, all content needs to be labeled. There is simply no other way to know what’s real and what’s machine-generated. My preference is that “human”-generated materials are labeled as human, while everything else is assumed to be non-human-generated. For certain areas (ads as an example), AI-generated content must be labeled as such.
"The final shot in Jasmine Crockett's new ad doesn't feature Texas voters—it's an image generated by Google's AI, Gemini." Edwards claimed the image contains a SynthID watermark, an invisible digital identifier used by Google to verify content created by its AI. The tech for labeling exists. The laws just need to catch up.
I'm not sure you're aware, but many people of Christian and other faiths allow their faith to guide their political beliefs. It was quite a long time ago now, but I was in a bible study where we were reading a (imo problematic) book making the argument that Christians should be politically active and should bring their Christian worldview into politics. You'd like to say that Talarico is just taking what he wants politically and putting a Christian veneer on it. But, i I think it is the opposite. He is taking his sincerely held religious views and trying to manifest them in politics. Many Texas baptists have done the same and offer bizarre-sounding justifications for terrible Christian-tinged conservative policies. You don't have to like or vote for any of it, obviously, but I don't think it is honest to say they're bending their christianity to accommodate what they want to achieve politically. Nor do I think it is nearly as universal as you make out that voters will prefer practical policy over their own religious conviction. That is in part why Talarico actually has no chance in Texas -- those who might be receptive to Christian messaging won't recognize his version of Christianity.
Technology is changing our world so fast. AI generated images are having an impact in all forms of television production. I don't remember if it was a topic in the BBS or this forum but actors are fighting to keep getting paid as production companies are using AI to replace actual actors following initial production and not pay the actors
My worry with having to label all machine generated content is that it's going to dilute the meaning of the word. Like California's Prop 65 'this item contains chemicals to cause cancer in California...' It's on so many things now that it's really not a deterrent anymore. It was just easier and cheaper for the manufacturers to put the label on everything rather than trying to really figure out what contains the chemicals. So there should be some levels of differentiation. If an ad replaces picture with cloudy sky with a sunny one, that shouldn't come with the same level of warning as an ad with generated voice and image of their opponent. It's a tough problem for sure.
I don’t believe it will dilute. Prop 65 is basically just a subjective warning. It tells you something could cause cancer, but maybe it won’t. Hint: everything could cause cancer lol, you just have to live long enough. Identifying content as Human, AI, or a mix of both is different; that’s objective. It doesn't require a physical label, and it isn't some huge, costly burden. The tech and the implementation are already here. Look at Meta and Google .. they’ve already started using their own digital "labels." Think about how software works today. Most of it is "signed" so you know where it came from. If it’s unsigned, the end user knows and can make their own choice. Right now, digital content isn't labeled or is but not exposed to users, so users are flying blind. They can't make an informed decision even if they wanted to. The meaning of SW aren’t diluted because vast majority of them are now signed (labeled). It’s just more secure and trustworthy
the use of AI in ads is a joke to me if an ad is AI whether it be video or voice, I immediately tune out and dgaf about what is being said or shown…atp, you’ve lost me
Using things like AI to create a crowd don't bother me any more than ad executives using Photoshop to clean up a photograph of a group of people or even something like a background that was green screened into an ad. Not saying you can't be upset by it, but I genuinely don't understand it. For the record I haven't seen the ad, so maybe I'm missing something, but in the abstract... For the record I favor Talarico over Crockett, so it isn't a favoritism thing. There are lots of places where I would take issue with using AI, just not here. Let me ask, if they had used a composted in stock image of a crowd from like Getty Images would that be less upsetting than using AI to generate it?
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/0...-university-of-texas-paxton-cornyn-hunt-2026/ Dallas U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett has a double-digit lead over Austin state Rep. James Talarico in the final days of Texas’ Senate Democratic primary, according to a new poll released Wednesday. In the survey, fielded from Feb. 2 to Feb. 16, Crockett garnered the support of 56% of voters, while Talarico got 44%. For the Democratic primary, pollsters from the University of Texas’ Texas Politics Project surveyed a sample of 369 voters, producing a margin of error of +/-5.1 points. As in other polls, Crockett had a massive advantage with Black voters, drawing 87% support. The Dallas congresswoman also led among seniors and voters without a college degree.
Talerico should just flat out campaign that Crockett would have no shot against whomever the Republican candidate is
The commercials are getting extremely nasty against Gonzales and Paxton. Dude, she set herself on fire?
