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

171–180 of 186 posts

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

#171

Post by PhilippGille »

wilg wrote: post #69
skylerwiernik wrote: post #68

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.

is that against the hn guidelines or something?

Probably these guidelines are related:

> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#172

Post by xtiansimon »

I say this to phone spammers all the time—are you a bot? If you are you have to tell me. Haha. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a CSR once, who gave their name as “Maryjane”. I asked, on an impulse, is that your real name? They said, No. It’s a jungle out there. Good for CA.

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

#174

Post by lesuorac »

smsm42 wrote: post #160
lesuorac wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think those items are labeled?

Its so you can do proper disposal of them ...

But what would you know about this since you're incapable of reading laws.

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/law/proposition-65-law-a...

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

#175

Post by orwin »

rightbyte wrote: post #169
scarab92 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Machines have resulted in extraordinary improvements in quality of life for humans. Luddites should be ignored because they are alarmist, and care not for whether their concerns are warranted or necessary, much like Californian politicians.

The Luddites were some sort of proto-socialists. The conception about them being mainly anti-machine is propaganda to mock them.

You shouldn't bother, some are uneducated by choice and they won't learn.

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

#176

Post by zoky »

huevosabio wrote: post #119
alwa wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, good to know. I get so many of these political spam messages that my default response has gone from just ignoring them to sending nasty replies in the hopes of demoralizing the jerks who think it's okay to send me nineteen messages a day on behalf of a political party I don't even support (not that it would be any better if I DID support the party in question). It's good to know that there's a chance that I can make someone feel just a little bit bad for being part of the mechanism that enables this sort of intrusion on my sleep and solitude.

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

#179

Post by banku_brougham »

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.

So compel speech from a person? "Congress shall make no law..." Really the most basic civics education would benefit us all, I think there are some youtube videos about this.

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

#180

Post by soheil »

somenameforme wrote: post #128
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.

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.

I'd say if you control what information 1.411 billion people have access to you have scale on your side.

So it's not scale.

Post reply on HN