Our industry needs to collectively push for laws that require labeling of AI content. If you’re doing brand spots, stills, etc you should be required to have a disclaimer or face fines. Social platforms need to have detection, either through metadata, invisible watermarks, etc. Hoping for the best won’t do. This disclaimer will serve as a scarlet letter, otherwise audiences won’t know the difference.

100% agree but it will never be done on a federal level under this current administration or sycophantic congress. Especially since no-holds-barred AI investment and the free reign being given to tech companies in exchange for investments in Trump’s businesses is what’s keeping Wall Street and the economy afloat right now.

Advertising is inherently deceptive. I think it comes down to how misleading the content is. Prior to AI we used CG, plastic surgery, post production and I’d argue the same.

Good advertising imo, speaks to the truth of the product or idea it’s pushing but we know how much that can be twisted or ignored. And this is where we have tiny disclaimers most people don’t read to get away with making claims. Win awards… is AI cheating? Bigger budgets, clients and agency infrastructure certainly is advantageous. The nepotism that allows certain people to get their foot in the door? Cheating, deceptive? Or, it’s all talent, skill and hard works.

Ethically, we need to look at where we are as a society as a whole, how we are using media on our audience population should be for what we need and “less” about things we don’t. As much as I love what we do, and I’m not content with how AI can be used like another photoshop filter in such a shallow and expected way. IMO, the ad-world is just another box to think out of. And we need to continue to do so.

I know some states are already moving towards this, but it needs to be done on federal level. We are one of several industries that should stick up for themselves.

Agree, it needs to be watermarked. Most Consumers hate Ai. on any of the social apps people are tired of being tricked into real v Ai. Right now you can mostly tell, but it’s really annoying to sift through. sadly it’s only going to get better and soon will be virtually impossible to tell Real vs Memorex. Can u imagine the implications?! fun times.

I agree, but I’m afraid that horse is mostly out of the barn. The fact that the music went the way it did 35 years ago and now programmed music, AI music, pre recorded tracks & lip sync at ostensibly live concerts etc. has been normalized means that reigning in AI in other “commercial” communication will be very tough. Digital retouching & editing & CGI are versions of the same thing. As has been widely written about, digital technology has been especially brutal to our creative industries.

How do you determine the threshold for what would require a label?

If someone asked chatgpt to act as a thesaurus and offer ten alt words for a line in a script and one was swapped in, should that require a label? Or if someone used generative fill in mocking up a keyframe that was used as a shot reference, would that require a label?

Like…#DemocracyAtWork ? 😂😂😂

I’d say it’s legally inevitable because it’s essentially misrepresentation.

If people can successfully sue for overly simplified product demos in ads (done for brevity) then they can sue for completely artificial visuals pretending to be real products/customers etc with no disclaimer.

I get why we all hate it. But what’s the reasoning (not trying to make a point, genuinely curious).

If I was a small business owner and I could make an ad with AI that people didn’t hate or couldn’t tell was AI, why should government restrict that?

As someone who might get replaced- or never go on a shoot again- I want it to stop. But I don’t get justification.

If the work is subject to the same laws as theoretically govern the rest of advertising, overt deception should already be ruled out. And, again theoretically, the laws should eventually preclude misuse of celebrity likenesses. But beyond those cases, what’s the compelling argument for restricting it more than any other production technique?

My personal hope is that people recognize and hate it. So the market will shut it down. But my instinct is that as it gets better, it will be less noticeable and/or we’ll all just get used to it and learn to accept it (and its flaws).

And I can’t help but think of all the stupid ideas I’ve had that I can now turn into a spots myself.

I don't get it. What is so problematic about AI content? If consumers hate it then we wouldn't use it, right?

I mean, if AI is as obvious and bad as everyone says it is, why do we need labels?

Some acts sitting in wait:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2691/text

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hr6571ih

An example of a state’s lawmaking:

https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/california-enacts-landmark-ai-transparency-law-transparency-frontier-artificial

if i was business owner and I had label my post has ai, I’d just pay the fine for not labeling it and write it off has the cost of doing business. I think for lots of business depend on this now.

A.I. is like McDonald’s. Human artists and designers are like Michelin-star restaurants. Both have their place. Both will still exist.

One is built for speed, scale, and sameness. The other is built on intention, craft, risk, and human creativity.