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

101–110 of 278 posts

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

#101

Post by wccrawford »

hajhatten wrote: post #78
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...

And if the article I read is true, they aren't honoring the warranty in the case of water damage.

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

#102

Post by sdoering »

hajhatten wrote: post #80
sdoering wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Actually Article 11 is in effect in Germany. Article 13 also.

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

#103

Post by novok »

hajhatten wrote: post #78
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...

Samsung isn’t the only one. Apple is similar too in its carve outs for water damage in it’s warranty. Im guessing samsung weasels out of it by saying water ‘resistance’ vs proof, but still marketing it with surfers and such? My water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example.

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

#104

Post by wccrawford »

croon wrote: post #54
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a bot farm is fine as long as you have a human intern there rubber stamping whatever content it generates?

Am I missing something or wouldn't you need one real human per bot for rubberstamping? I'm sure this is targetting bots pretending to be humans that do not exist. If you want to be personally responsible with your real face and name for everything your singular bot writes, that would still solve nearly all current bot problems.

I'm pretty sure I could hit at least 2 keys repeatedly without any problems. I would probably hit keys on 4 actual keyboards without too much trouble.

If I made custom keyboards with just a few choices each, I think I could probably handle half a dozen without any problems.

And if I'm literally just always telling the bot "okay, go" with 1 button, I think I could handle dozens.

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

#105

Post by afiori »

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.

This is exactly the same as legalizing every loophole and abuse of wording.

Above all, if the law would be code, who would decide the input? Unless every conversation and record is already in the Law-Bots huge power is given to the "formatting" of the evidences.

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

#106

Post by tastroder »

dorgo wrote: post #83
luckylion wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AliExpress does this as well and in an annoying manner that I consider insulting. Support chat will start with a useless bot that just looks for keywords and then replies with FAQ links. "Escalate to a service agent" will make you wait for 30-45 seconds to then be greeted by "Anna" or some other human name. It's another bot, with typing-delay and will follow a simple script to keep you busy, low quality and no appare…

I'm curious. Are you complaining about support not beeing able to solve your issue, or about talking to bots instead of humans? Assume a strong AI with enough authority would handle support. Would you still prefer humans?

I'd have a problem with both in the support case. The alternative to a human contact is a natural language interface that just wastes my time and/or laziness in other parts of the business. If my problem is covered by your FAQ, improve search. If my problem can be solved by a bot, let me do it in your UI. If handling my problem through a human requires more information prepend a form. Provide a clear path to skip/escalate.

To be fair though, I'm annoyed by human first level support for similar reasons most of the time but at least escalation/problem solving with them is easier than a bot that explodes when you go off-script. I think, personally, that making me talk to your fancy answering machine is just devalueing. If a company wants my business they should have human support and pay them enough to work with the customer.

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

#107

Post by afiori »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #24
floatingatoll wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) No, proofreading is not authorship. 2,3,4) A judge could reasonably find that you were attempting to circumvent the law and declare all of these as “bot”. The judicial system will not specify in writing complete coverage for every loophole. Judges can, regardless, find you guilty.

> 1) No, proofreading is not authorship. It is when the substitution is both context-aware and not what you intended to write. > 2,3,4) A judge could reasonably find that you were attempting to circumvent the law and declare all of these as “bot”. Wait, so if someone sends you a question and the suggestions can detect from the context your answer, you're a bot because you chose the suggestion instead of typing out wo…

You are not supposed to inspect laws for loopholes. Many laws are exactly that, and consider circumvention as aggravating.

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

#108

Post by afiori »

bengotow wrote: post #18
asutekku wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t classify that as a bot as there’s still human interaction required.

Reminds me of those election SMS messages. /Technically/ a human presses send on every single message so it doesn't meet the definition of SMS spam, but for all practical purposes it is.

A nice test to implement would be that if the function of the human operator can be replaced by a dumb bot, then it is functionally a bot.

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

#109

Post by croon »

wccrawford wrote: post #104
croon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I missing something or wouldn't you need one real human per bot for rubberstamping? I'm sure this is targetting bots pretending to be humans that do not exist. If you want to be personally responsible with your real face and name for everything your singular bot writes, that would still solve nearly all current bot problems.

I'm pretty sure I could hit at least 2 keys repeatedly without any problems. I would probably hit keys on 4 actual keyboards without too much trouble. If I made custom keyboards with just a few choices each, I think I could probably handle half a dozen without any problems. And if I'm literally just always telling the bot "okay, go" with 1 button, I think I could handle dozens.

I think you completely missed my point. I'm not talking about practical ability, but liability.

Who would those bots be? wccrawford1, wccrawford2, wccrawford3? That would not pretend to be anything other than bots or clone accounts.

If on the other hand your bots would be "Brock Samson", "Joey America" and "Chip Dipsby", etc. That would clearly be non-humans pretending to be humans, regardless of you tripping the first/last domino piece.

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

#110

Post by jacquesm »

amelius wrote: post #96
jonnydubowsky wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recent experience with a credit card customer support agent might as well have been me conversing with a bot. It was actually more frustrating for both me and the agent, that they were so strictly bound to a script, with no room for their creative human brain to actually adapt their response to the unique context of my issue. When customer service is nothing more then an agent choosing from various scripted respon…

I guess the point is that they still save on average. Most calls can probably be handled using a simple script.

They may save on average, but that's just shifting the expense to the customer in terms of wasted time. If there is anything I've learned over 30 years of running businesses that being disrespectful towards your customers' time it is that you will end up losing those customers.
Post reply on HN