Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Luddites were activists defending humanity against the harms of mechanization, yes.
California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
121–130 of 186 posts
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#122The requirement doesn't kick in until 10 million monthly US users. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to smaller businesses.
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
#123Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#124A 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 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
#125How 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.
Most of us are just bots.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#126Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#127Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#128Interesting. 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.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#129Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#130A 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.
It would be so embarrassing if your AI Girlfriend / Boyfriend turned out to be real.