[dead]
California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
101–110 of 186 posts
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#102Wait... What? There is already a law for this exact purpose in California. It's called the BOT Act from 2019 https://dailyjournal.com/articles/379909-california-s-bolste...
>requires clear and conspicuous disclosures of bots ("automated online account[s] where all or substantially all of the actions or posts of that account are not the result of a person"), in the context of incentivizing a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or influencing a vote in an election
I suppose they are generalizing this away from just "paid actors". bots don't need to be commercially involved to be annoying.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#103A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops. I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently…
It bothers me that they didn't consider that this should be bilateral: a bot must confirm that it is a bot, and a human must confirm it is a human. I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
Your sentiment reminds me of this: https://www.goingconcern.com/when-ai-stands-for-actually-ind...
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#104A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops. I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently…
It bothers me that they didn't consider that this should be bilateral: a bot must confirm that it is a bot, and a human must confirm it is a human. I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
Freeze Peach says I can be a bot if I want to.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#105I understand being against this law on practicality / constitutionality grounds. It seems to me that the "converse" law would be more useful and legally appropriate: forbid people from making intentionally deceptive bots that claim to be human or have human-like emotional/social capabilities.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#106How do I know if I'm a bot?
>Online platforms with over 10 million monthly U.S. visitors would need to ensure bot operators on their services comply with these expanded disclosure rules.
Dang can check for you.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#107A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops. I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently…
[flagged]
So firstly the idea that context shouldn't affect people's views on things (like whether a good is handmade or not) just doesn't match up with how people actually interact with and perceive the world. I mean obviously I'll feel different about my copy of Calvin and Hobbs I read as a child versus a random copy in a store. I would even go as far to say that as a human it's impossible to fully separate objects from their perceived context.
For bots specifically, many bots try to pass themselves off as human because the people that created them know that that lie matters. There's room for debate about what's the best specific policy but the mere fact that bots so often try to pass themselves off as human is their creators admitting that it's important.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#108A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops. I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently…
It bothers me that they didn't consider that this should be bilateral: a bot must confirm that it is a bot, and a human must confirm it is a human. I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
Some humans pull it off very well.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#109A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops. I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently…
It bothers me that they didn't consider that this should be bilateral: a bot must confirm that it is a bot, and a human must confirm it is a human. I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
I’ve had a number of encounters with ISP tech support where the humans seemed a lot like bots…
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#110Seems only fair, given how often I have to check a box to prove I'm not one.