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

California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–278 of 278 posts

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#271

Post by Can_Not »

ticmasta wrote: post #221
perfmode wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imho, this strengthens the OP’s use of the quote. successful Tech founders are especially guilty of producing what they strive in vain to relieve.

perhaps, but I think Thoreau is talking primarily about the risk of producing a systemic dependency, i.e. the "teach a man to fish" philosophy. He was an ardent believer in self-sufficiency and prioritized individual autonomy over maximizing group benefit. He has a lot of great things to say but you could argue their relevancy and context is often misrepresented.

Our current problem is the growth of "make sure all ways a man can fish has to pay rent to me first".

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#272

Post by Can_Not »

orasis wrote: post #171
moorhosj wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vagueness is how the American legal system has worked since inception. I don’t see it changing now. Society changes faster than representatives can legislate.

The fix is to not pass the law in the first place. Regulation generally favors incumbents.

It also unfairly favors companies that aren't poisoning children with lead.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#273

Post by etripe »

jdsully wrote: post #236
svachalek wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens have a right to free speech. Corporations do not, unless they also happen to be people.

Do groups of people have a right to free speech or just individuals acting alone?

The group as an aggregate has the right to free speech because each individual does and they share the right to assembly.

There is no good reason to afford the group a new collective identity with its own rights other than allowing people to hide behind the group identity and avoid personal persecution. That's a risky proposition and should be curtailed or at least conditional.

Should the Catholic church be able to hide behind its fictional collective identity to shield priests from abuse charges? Should execs be able to blame "corporate strategy" to avoid persecution as if they had no contribution? If so, to what degree does that still warrant large wages? Should diplomats be able to run down people in the street without penalty, run red lights or import contraband? Can ads lie about product specifications, safety, ingredients, or the value proposition?

As with programming questions: it depends. I would argue the answer is definitely not always and without conditions.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#274

Post by mensetmanusman »

hedora wrote: post #235
anon1m0us wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…

I’m a fan of forcing corporations to issue shares to the victims. Do something minor? 10% dilution. Do something worthy of the corporate death penalty? Issue 100 shares for every share outstanding. Of course, the issued shares would have as many votes as the maximum currently issued share (so if the founders get 10 votes per share that is what the victims get too). Note that you can set precedents based on percentage…

The issue with a policy like this is it would limit the size of corporations to a few dozen people.

Someone does something bad at a F100 company? 10,000 employees lose their jobs supporting their family.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#275

Post by wccrawford »

croon wrote: post #109
wccrawford wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure I could hit at least 2 keys repeatedly without any problems. I would probably hit keys on 4 actual keyboards without too much trouble. If I made custom keyboards with just a few choices each, I think I could probably handle half a dozen without any problems. And if I'm literally just always telling the bot "okay, go" with 1 button, I think I could handle dozens.

I think you completely missed my point. I'm not talking about practical ability, but liability. Who would those bots be? wccrawford1, wccrawford2, wccrawford3? That would not pretend to be anything other than bots or clone accounts. If on the other hand your bots would be "Brock Samson", "Joey America" and "Chip Dipsby", etc. That would clearly be non-humans pretending to be humans, regardless of you tripping the fir…

So if every one of my bots was named Brock Samson, even though that's not my name, that would be okay?

If I had live people answering, but their names were randomized, would that not be okay?

I honestly don't see any real difference between naming the bots like that. Yes, some people will be less likely to think they're bots if they're all named differently. But the vast majority of people will not notice if they get contacted by several different employees/bots all named Brock Samson. Most people won't even talk to more than 1 employee in a short timeframe to even have a chance to know there was a difference.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#276

Post by jfengel »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #60

California is setting a dangerous precident. If individual states each enact individual laws governing the internet, then only large companies will have the resources to follow them. We'll see a balkanization of the web wherein it's no longer very world wide. Small internet businesses will become harder and harder to start. Big monopolies will become entrenched. It's not pretty.

If the alternative is to wait for Congress to pass a law, then the precedent is long since set. The Congress sets a bar for passing new legislation very high (two separate houses, one of which has a 41% veto, plus the chief executive).

The "laboratory of the states" thing is a legal nightmare in a networked world, but it's inevitable under the current organization. Well-crafted nation rules would be better, but a lot of people seem to want it this way.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#277

Post by LostJourneyman »

zamadatix wrote: post #243
LostJourneyman wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends build to build. The standard approach is one of 4: 1) The bot initiates the conversation and your initial message gets sent directly to an agent. This is the older model that's in most common use today. 2) The bot initiates contact and based on your responses does some simple keyword matching and delivers help article links where possible or asks for more information IVR style, then when it hits an "I don'…

https://xkcd.com/806/ Nobody will notice, you know you want to add it ;).

You have NO IDEA how tempted I've been to add that! I've literally had printed this out and pinned to the wall of my cubicle for years!

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#278

Post by simonebrunozzi »

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

Maybe a form of public shaming and accountability could help?

This is a minuscule experiment I am running: https://gitlab.com/simonebrunozzi/dark-companies

Post reply on HN