New York's Pro-Human AI Laws
In a surprise for many, the state of New York is emerging as a global leader in pro-human AI laws. Here's what it means | Edition #279
👋 Hi everyone, Luiza Jarovsky, PhD, here. Welcome to the 279th edition of my newsletter, trusted by 91,900+ subscribers worldwide.
As the old internet dies, polluted by low-quality AI-generated content, you can always find raw, pioneering, human-made thought leadership here. Thank you for helping me make this a leading publication in the field.
🎓 Now is a great time to learn, upskill, and get involved in AI governance. If you are ready for the next step, here is how my Academy can help you:
Join the 29th cohort of my AI Governance Training in May
Discover your next read in AI and beyond in my AI Book Club
Join our AI Ethics Paper Club’s group discussion on March 31
Sign up for free educational resources at our Learning Center
Subscribe to our Job Alerts for open roles in AI governance
New York’s Pro-Human AI Laws
Over the past three years, I have been writing about global AI regulation efforts, and I have not hidden my frustration with the slow pace and lack of action in most parts of the world.
The growing cases of AI harms, including political manipulation, mental health harm, suicides, deception, fraud, scams, deskilling, replacement, AI washing, as well as the theoretical possibility of catastrophic events raised by some, did not seem to be enough to convince authorities to take action.
Even the EU AI Act, enacted in August 2024 and widely expected to be a globally influential source of fundamental-rights-based AI rules, has lost its political momentum and may be drastically weakened through the Digital Omnibus.
In a sea of inaction and deregulation, the state of New York, perhaps unexpectedly, offers a breath of fresh air, as it seems to be openly embracing a pro-human legal approach.
In December 2025 alone, New York enacted the RAISE Act (“to require safety reports for powerful frontier AI models in order to limit critical harm”), S8391 (“to generally prohibit the use of a digital replica of a deceased personality’s voice or likeness in an expressive audiovisual work without prior consent”), and S8420A (“to require disclaimers when commercial content contains a synthetic performer”).
This last law deserves special attention, as it is the first in the United States with this specific scope.
S8420A requires anyone engaged in advertising to conspicuously disclose the use of a synthetic performer. It imposes a $1,000 civil penalty for a first violation and a $5,000 penalty for any subsequent violation.
The law defines a synthetic performer as:
“A digitally created asset, created, reproduced, or modified by computer, using generative AI or a software algorithm, that is intended to create the impression that the asset is engaging in an audiovisual and/or visual performance of a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural performer.”
Therefore, anyone using “AI influencers” or human-looking AI-generated visual or audiovisual avatars in advertisements must visibly disclose them.
I saw comments from people who seemed outraged by this law, saying that AI-generated avatars or models would not be different from heavily edited photos or videos of people, and these are not required to be visibly disclosed.
Humans and synthetic performers might be visually similar, as synthetic images and videos today are extremely realistic.
From a pro-human perspective, however, they are extremely different.
One is a human model or actor who eats, sleeps, and works, hired to perform that job. That human has specific physical characteristics that may have been shaped or altered by lighting, filters, and editing, but they still refer to an existing person who could be verified in real life.
The other is a human-like AI-generated avatar or synthetic performer, using the law’s terminology. It is essentially the output data of one or more AI systems, further edited to appear human and fit the desired aesthetic. Any physical characteristic does not refer to physical or biological reality.
By requiring the disclosure of synthetic performers, NY lawmakers are celebrating humans, including human work, human physical features, and human aesthetics.
This law may lead more people to want to hire real humans to work as models in advertisements, since the outcome will not be labeled as “synthetic” and might be perceived as more authentic and valuable by the audience.
There is also the ethical aspect: synthetic performers are created based on the physical appearance of real people whose images were collected and ultra-processed by a generative AI model, but who never received any form of compensation.
Labeling synthetic performers is another step toward helping the public understand the economic and ethical challenges behind generative AI.
Without disclosure obligations like these (which hopefully will spread globally), we would soon watch advertisers push the idea of the “desirable female body” to humanly impossible standards, leading to more cases of body dysmorphia and mental health harm, especially among teenage girls.
There is still another recently proposed bill in New York that takes the pro-human approach to a previously unimagined level:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Luiza's Newsletter to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.