141–150 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The Luddites were activists defending humanity against the harms of mechanization, yes.
Luddites should be ignored because they are alarmist, and care not for whether their concerns are warranted or necessary, much like Californian politicians.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it luiddite-ism to not lie? The core issue here isn't even about tech. It's about transparency.
Because they aren't lieing, they are simply not disclosing whether their actions are the result on an organic neural network or a silicon one. Society almost never differentiates between goods and services produced directly by human hands, versus with the aid of tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it luiddite-ism to not lie? The core issue here isn't even about tech. It's about transparency.
Because they aren't lieing, they are simply not disclosing whether their actions are the result on an organic neural network or a silicon one. Society almost never differentiates between goods and services produced directly by human hands, versus with the aid of tools.
This is objectively wrong. "Handmade" is an incredibly common marketing keyword slapped on all sorts of products to imply quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
Your statement attempts to give an impression of a middle ground, but what it actually does is delegating the action to the human - who has limited energy and has to make hundreds of other decisions.
Your statement sounds like what a lobbyist might whisper to a regulator in an attempt to effectively neuter the bill.
People not versed in technology do not - and do not have to - know what an LLM is or what it can do.
These matters need be resolved at the source and we must not allow hopeful libertarian technologist DDoS the whole society.