Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

veeto.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 186 posts

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

#151

Post by comex »

tenpies wrote: post #100
wongarsu wrote: post #25

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.

A law like that would probably be unconstitutional if it applied broadly to speech in general. Compare United States v. Alvarez, where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment gives you the right to lie about having received military medals.

It might work in more limited contexts, like commercial speech.

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

#152

Post by advisedwang »

cebert wrote: post #2

I wish this legislation would also apply to AI generated emails, sales outreach, and LinkedIn messages.

I think it does. The wording proposed is:

> It shall be unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online. A person using a bot shall not be liable under this section if the person discloses that it is a bot. A person using a bot shall disclose that it is a bot if asked or prompted by another person.

(see https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB410/2025 for definitions and source)

email, sales outreach and LinkedIn messages are all communications or interactions.

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

#153

Post by scarab92 »

slg wrote: post #148
scarab92 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

That's a completely voluntary marketing decision.

There's no law requiring manufacturers to identify hand made versus machine made, and often, there aren't even clear definitions for what hand made means.

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

#154

Post by InfinityByTen »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #124
tenpies wrote: post #100

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?

[dead]

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

#155

Post by advisedwang »

rappatic wrote: 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.

Incorrect. They 10M requirement is part of the definition of an "online platform" [1], which is only mentioned in the existing statue as them NOT having an obligation [2] and is not mentioned at all in the proposed law [3] other than a formatting fix.

[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-bpc/division-7/...

[2] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-bpc/division-7/...

[3] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB410/2025

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

#156

Post by [deleted] »

aithrowawaycomm wrote: post #105

I 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.

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by diebeforei485 »

somenameforme wrote: post #122
rappatic wrote: 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 literal…

Small companies don't have to implement the ability to stop marketing or political texts if the customer replies STOP. Twilio, Amazon SNS, and other companies further down the stack do it automatically.

I assume foundational models will include it in all text they emit somehow.

Just how Zoom tells everyone "recording in progress" as soon as you press the record button, to ensure compliance. Or indeed Apple's newish call recording feature.

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

#158

Post by kadoban »

lupire wrote: post #99
kadoban wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much all of the stories on the laws of robotics were about why the laws suck and don't work.

I think you deeply misunderstood the stories.

Your contention is that Asimov considered the 3 laws as good and effective ways to protect humanity?

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

#159

Post by nico »

Spivak wrote: post #93
soheil wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If having to disclose to your users/customers that they're interacting with a bot makes them stop interacting then that sucks for you. I work in this space and we proudly advertise when you're talking to a bot and our users actually choose it over the option to connect to a human. Our staff do better work but the bot is instant. It seems people would rather go back and forth a few times and be in the drivers seat tha…

I see a similar phenomenon in a lot of places that have both kiosks and counters with people. But it seems to depend on how simple the transaction or process is

If it’s simple enough for self-service, most people prefer the kiosks, sometimes even queueing for the kiosks and avoiding the people at the counters (eg. movie theaters, fast food places, supermarket checkout)

But if it’s something more complicated, people tend to either prefer (or end up anyway at) the counters with people (eg. airports, car rentals, in-store customer service)

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

#160

Post by smsm42 »

lesuorac wrote: post #52
smsm42 wrote: post #30

Who wants to bet this ends up in prop-65-like list of disclaimers about алл тхе automation tools used for every message, which will make the messages bigger but won't make them any less frequent?

I mean prop-65 does make the "messages" less frequent. You have to dispose of certain items listed in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 different than other items. As-in companies can't just discharge cancerous substances down the drain anymore so you're going to want safer substances as an input if you can't avoid discharging it.

You clearly never been in California if you think prop 65 warnings have much to do with drains or safety.
Post reply on HN