61–70 of 186 posts
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…
Interesting. I’m afraid this won’t really go anywhere, but it’s a good conversation to have On one hand, judging by the comments, there’s quite a bit of interest on disclosure On the other hand, corporations and big advertisers (spammers?) might not really want it. Or is there a positive aspect in disclosure for them?
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…
[flagged]
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…
[flagged]
I 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."
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…
[flagged]
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. I like good, helpful bots. Them being bots don't make them less helpful (on the contrary. It's nice knowing they can be available 24/7).
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…
[flagged]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, political SMS messages and the messages you get from some other random number acknowledging the "STOP" message you just sent. (Especially if it were in a machine readable form.)
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
It's unoptimal because I bet those volunteering or otherwise aren't necesarily doing that QA, though.