I understand the sentiment but I think this is too far of a pushback. Restricting access to information even though it may be inaccurate or misleading isn't the right answer. AI is a tool. I'd wager, force a prompt to specifically be visible whenever subjects break that. Essentially the cigerette equivelant "THIS PRODUCT KILLS YOU" but something like "AI RESPONSES TO MEDICAL INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ACCURATE."

I feel like this logic should of banned search engines since they could provide links to sites with misinformation.

I'm careful about laws, i ask for a summary then ask to cite the source for the relevant bits. I'm not asking for legal advice, I want to know what the letter of the law says. Google has always struggled with this.

FUCK ALL AI FOREVER AMEN

Maybe I'm just ignorant about this, but it feels a bit "gatekeepy" to outlaw answering questions about the law itself. Like... so I can't use an LLM to help do taxes? Or if I'm served a confusing legal document, I have to pay an expensive attorney to understand the legalese? I can't even just get a rough idea from an LLM first?

EDIT: Also I've literally had a professional accountant send me a ChatGPT conversation they had because they didn't know tax law well enough. I feel like if anything that should be outlawed. Professionals should actually have to know shit and know how to research primary sources.

You're going to end up with AI that works for some people & not for others under these sorts of policies. I don't really think this is in the spirit of democratic socialism.

This is super dumb. People will just Google their questions instead, and get worse results.

Grok is this real?

Had to call a strip club, fucking AI bot answers the phone. Thankfully they answered the door before I even had to talk to it.

I really think this is a bad idea these should really just be flagged, there's many situations where asking these questions in necessary and there's few if any other ways to get an answer

Add edibility of wild plants to the list please

First look at that picture, I thought he was starting to grow a wild mullet

I feel like finding and citing appropriate law cases would be a great way for AI to be used, especially because the bullshit legal-ese that surrounds everything in court cases is so spectacularly opaque and trivial that you have to pay out the nose just for someone to parse through all the bullshit... Like, lawyers shouldn't even be a thing you need unless it's for some really complicated case. The courtroom should be a place where an average citizen could speak for themselves.

Also, as someone who studied medicine... Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit? I don't want to imply that they don't know what they're doing, like, you need to study medicine to know what to google, BUT... they still be googling shit. I think AI could be trained to ask the same patient history questions that a nurse asks. Then using the answers to those questions, then they can provide some feedback, with a big ol disclaimer that it's NOT to be taken seriously, and you should consult with a physician.

New York State not New York City.

I don't know why Mamdani is pictured. I think it is because the proposal was introduced in the State Senate by Kisten Gonzalez who is a DSA member.

Cue the first amendment arguments from the "corporations are people" crowd

So is this just a meme or is there an actual bill? Something tells me that if a law like this were passed, it would outlaw things like AI assisted protein folding.

The fact that it's focusing on law, psychology, and medicine implies an understanding of how vital AI is in things like hurricane forecasting it wants to exclude but still target other things they can throw under the bus in a bid to get re-elected. But AI is vital in so much that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for technologically illiterate law makers to effectively legislate against poor use of AI.