Live data from Hacker News

California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

veeto.app

121–130 of 186 posts

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#121
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The Luddites were activists defending humanity against the harms of mechanization, yes.

Not really, they were protesting against low pay (and low-paid competitors) through the medium of smashing something, which happened to be stocking-spinning machines. They might equally well have kidnapped the boss's budgerigar if that was an effective way to apply pressure.

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#122
post #8

The requirement doesn't kick in until 10 million monthly US users. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to smaller businesses.

There's a practical reason with two sides to it. Most small companies simply won't know this rule even exists, if it passes. And as various other jurisdictions pass various other laws relating to AI, this will gradually turn into hundreds of laws, very possibly incompatible, spattered across countless jurisdictions - regularly changing with all sorts of opaque precedent defining what they exactly mean. You'll literally need a regulatory compliance department to keep up to date.

And such departments, staffed with lawyers, tend to be expensive. Have these laws affect small business and you greatly imperil the ability of small companies to even exist, which is one reason big companies in certain industries tend to actively lobby for regulations - a pretext of 'safety' with a reality of anticompetitive behavior. But by the time a company has 10 million regular users, it should be able to comfortably fund a compliance department.

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#124

A 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 wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.

I don't have an opinion yet, but I can't think of a specific reason to object to that (other than a default preference for honesty). Could you give an example or two?

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#125

How 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.

You're claiming that news.ycombinator.com has over 10 million monthly U.S. visitors?

Most of us are just bots.

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#127
post #71

This is clearly undisclosed promotion for vetto.app. alexd127's only other account activity is on this thread [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901553 ] for the exact same bill.

Better website: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB410/2025

how is it better?

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#128
post #62
post #17

Interesting. I’m afraid this won’t really go anywhere, but it’s a good conversation to have On one hand, judging by the comments, there’s quite a bit of interest on disclosure On the other hand, corporations and big advertisers (spammers?) might not really want it. Or is there a positive aspect in disclosure for them?

As bots get smarter we need to give them more access not less, people have been used as useful idiots and puppets for far too long I don't see why we should make an exception for bots.

Because of scale. Fool one person and you're a conman, fool a million and you're a politician. But with software anybody can jump to arbitrarily high scales, limited only by money.

Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

#130

A 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 wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.

It would be so embarrassing if your AI Girlfriend / Boyfriend turned out to be real.

Post reply on HN