> Such a law can't be written in a way that complies with First Amendment protections and the vagueness doctrine.

I disagree. What is vague about "generative content must be disclosed"?

What are the first amendment issues? Attribution clearly can be required for some forms of speech, it's why every political ad on TV carries an attribution blurb.

> It's a silly thing to want anyway. What matters is whether the content is legal or not; the tool used is irrelevant.

Again, I disagree. The line between tools and actors will only blur further in the future without action.

> Centuries ago some authoritarians raised similar concerns over printing presses.

I'm pretty clearly not advocating for a "smash the presses" approach here.

> And copyright is an entirely separate issue.

It is related, and a model worth considering as it arose out of the last technical breakthrough in this area (the printing press, mass copying of the written word).

Your disagreement is meaningless because it's not grounded in any real understanding of US Constitutional law and you clearly haven't thought things through. What is generative AI? Please provide a strict legal definition which complies with the vagueness doctrine. Is an if/then statement with a random number generator generative AI? How about the ELIZA AI psychology program from 1964? And you'll also have to explain how your proposal squares with centuries of Supreme Court decisions on compelled speech.

> What are the first amendment issues? Attribution clearly can be required for some forms of speech, it's why every political ad on TV carries an attribution blurb.

I'm not sure this is the best comparison. The government can regulate the speech of government employees. Presumably it can do so for candidates working in capacity to get a government role.