just another thing that will hurt the small guy somehow, and barely bother the big guy
California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
111–120 of 186 posts
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I feel like “using automation to make manufacturing more efficient” and “using automation to respond to customer support” are very different things
Up close they look very diff rent.
A bit farther away both end up being the same — “using automation to make executives insanely rich”.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#113This 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.
[deleted]
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#114I like that this bill partially implements the second law of robotics: "1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."
You do realize that RFC3514 is still not widely implemented?
And that was just one bit on a packet — far different than complex constraints on the behavior of artificial intelligence…
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#115Wait... 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...
That one's here:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
"An act to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 17940) to Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to bots."
The new one is "An act to amend Sections 17940 and 17941 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to bots." This one amends that one.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#116Earlier 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’ve had a number of encounters with ISP tech support where the humans seemed a lot like bots…
All support is basically like bots nowadays, that's why they can be replaced by bots so easily.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
>It’s akin to requiring manufacturers to disclose whether a product is hand made or whether machines were used to reduce the need for humans to do repetitive manual labour. Let's go off this lens... why is this bad? >The bots that are used to help humans achieve nefarious goals will simply continue to pretend to be human. Good. Now I can catch them, report them, and CA can fine them. Again, I don't see the downside.…
But the discrimination angle is interesting. What if a law required everyone to be "transparent" and respond truthfully to "are you [some race]"?
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#118Is this feasibly enforceable? The types of organizations that employ bots seem like the same type to not care about the California laws.
Most likely not. See previous laws on disclosing salary requirements on job postings, less than half of CA companies disclose it and nothing happens
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
For political stuff you need a human to press send. So it's a semi automated system. I've volunteered before, and at least in CA, you basically have a gui that prepolutes messages and guides you through each number one by one. Its really weird
Interesting! Does the same interface expose you to people’s responses, if any? That is, if I receive one of your campaign texts, am I indeed “texting with a person” both directions? Or does that route to a call center somewhere? I note in TFA that it: > expands current law, which only mandates disclosure when bots aim to influence commercial transactions or voting behavior. I wonder if your campaign does it that way…
Yes, basically you're initiating a lot of chat conversations. They help with pre generated responses here and there (at least if the campaign is savvy) but once you are talking it's mostly human to human. If you were to use LLMs though, you'll still need someone to press send.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It’s akin to requiring manufacturers to disclose whether a product is hand made or whether machines were used to reduce the need for humans to do repetitive manual labour. Let's go off this lens... why is this bad? >The bots that are used to help humans achieve nefarious goals will simply continue to pretend to be human. Good. Now I can catch them, report them, and CA can fine them. Again, I don't see the downside.…
But the discrimination angle is interesting. What if a law required everyone to be "transparent" and respond truthfully to "are you [some race]"?
I don't really see the analogy, unless you're arguing that chatgpt deserves human rights.