Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 278 posts

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#71

Post by luckylion »

viraptor wrote: post #66
luckylion wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or, as you did, just say something that puts them off script. I don't know about that. Does Amazon's support use bots? Or are they just in a remote call center using auto translate to communicate with customers? Because in general, they appear like bots to me: they will parse for key words and reply to those, ignoring context and subtle differences that make their replies sound weird.

> Does Amazon's support use bots? Depends on the section of Amazon. AWS enterprise support does not.

I'm talking about retail / security.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#72

Post by TeMPOraL »

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

Strongly agreed.

I didn't want to post yet another "reason #651235 why I loathe adtech" comment, but that's really it. Bots pretending to be people wouldn't be of interest at this level if it was just criminals trying to scam people - it would be just another type of crime. This is a problem because of the almost-fraud tactics of sales and marketing that, for some reason, happen to be on the right side of the legal line. I suggest we move that line to solve this problem.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#73

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

burfog wrote: post #41
dessant wrote: post #22

I felt stupid, but I have fallen victim to this on dpd.com while tracking a package. A helpful chat popup has appeared where I could request assistance from a support agent, but it was not disclosed that the agent is a bot. Needless to say I have spent a couple of minutes repeatedly asking a question, and even rephrasing it while being frustrated that this person does not seem to grasp my issue.

I've been assuming that it's a pre-determined initial message, but that a real human in a low-cost country would immediately be involved if I bothered to respond. What portion of the chat pop up windows do you think are purely bot? Might any of them be purely human?

Bot initiated. Human, assisted with menus of canned phrases. "Just one moment while I check that for you." Bot to wrap-up; survey, emails, etc

That's my assumption and if I'm not in a rush, pretty ok with it.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#74

Post by WAHa_06x36 »

gdhbcc wrote: post #65
inopinatus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is not a programming language. Believing so is a common misconception amongst engineers, but depending on it as such is likely to lead to disappointment, frustration, anger, needless bickering, extended conflict, and vexatiously long, hard to read, and mostly unenforceable contracts.

The law should be a programming language. The fact that it's not isn't a feature, it's a bug.

Looking back at half a century of horrendous bug-ridden code, and you still say this?

I mean, people have tried! Ethereum created a system of contracts implemented as a programming language. Know what it led to? People losing huge amounts of their money after someone found a bug in the contract and exploited it. And after that, the money was gone. The hacker had followed the contract as written, and the money was theirs now.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#75

Post by murat124 »

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

Not disagreeing with you but I believe Thoreau said that about philanthropy.

> There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#76

Post by TeMPOraL »

scarejunba wrote: post #70
scarejunba wrote: post #5

If I make a generated face that speaks my stuff with a generated voice, is it a bot?

Well, amusing that people thought this was wholly irrelevant. Here's what I was thinking of when I said that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksb3KD6DfSI Also amusing that there are two confident opposite opinions in response.

What does this video montage you linked have to do with computer-generated faces speaking computer-generated voices?

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#77

Post by TeMPOraL »

WAHa_06x36 wrote: post #74
gdhbcc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law should be a programming language. The fact that it's not isn't a feature, it's a bug.

Looking back at half a century of horrendous bug-ridden code, and you still say this? I mean, people have tried! Ethereum created a system of contracts implemented as a programming language. Know what it led to? People losing huge amounts of their money after someone found a bug in the contract and exploited it. And after that, the money was gone. The hacker had followed the contract as written, and the money was the…

Yup. And it led into split of Ethereum into two chains, one followed by people who believed that code should be law, and other who believed the code should be law only when it works in their favour.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#78

Post by hajhatten »

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

> see the Samsung ad which they're currently being hauled over the coals for in Australia.

For people not in the know, apparently Samsung is marketing its latest phones as water proof with ads showing surfers and people fully clothed under water. ACCC does not approve of this, as the phones aren't IP rated for use in salt water.

https://www.techradar.com/news/samsung-is-getting-sued-in-au...

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#79

Post by johnlbevan2 »

frigfog wrote: post #21

Well, at least the Turing test is solved.

Haha, that was my first thought too...

Unless companies start asking all human employees to start claiming that they're bots so as to subvert the new rule... there's not a law against that yet.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#80

Post by hajhatten »

sdoering wrote: post #62
throwaway13337 wrote: post #60

California is setting a dangerous precident. If individual states each enact individual laws governing the internet, then only large companies will have the resources to follow them. We'll see a balkanization of the web wherein it's no longer very world wide. Small internet businesses will become harder and harder to start. Big monopolies will become entrenched. It's not pretty.

Or companies start acting like a sane person would. Not outsourcing communication to a bot without disclosure for example. And do so globally. Or taking the European GDPR regulations as an example actually caring a little bit more about the user' data and enabling informed consent.

Agreed, when are you enforcing Article 11/13 in the US? /s
Post reply on HN