6 ms·

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

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.

hunter2_ 2y ago
Your sentiment reminds me of this: https://www.goingconcern.com/when-ai-stands-for-actually-indians/ https://www.goingconcern.com/when-ai-stands-for-actually-ind...
Galatians4_16 2y ago
Freeze Peach says I can be a bot if I want to.
chrisco255 2y ago
Some humans pull it off very well.
BobbyTables2 2y ago
I’ve had a number of encounters with ISP tech support where the humans seemed a lot like bots…
- pishpash 2y ago
  All support is basically like bots nowadays, that's why they can be replaced by bots so easily.
  - scarab92 2y ago
    It's all neural nets. The differences are just implementation details (i.e. whether the transistors are carbon or silicon based).
- rightbyte 2y ago
  I think they used to have a lot of canned responses which made them feel like bots.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> 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?
- InfinityByTen 2y ago
  [dead]
- MobiusHorizons 2y ago
  Probably the main risk would be people trusting what they think to be an automated system and trusting it to act for a specific purpose. That or people saying things they think should be private. I’m not saying it’s actually safe to interact this way with bots, but the trust expectations are different enough.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  Privacy
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- scarab92 2y ago
  What you'll find is that most people form a knee jerk opinion first, most often in opposition to change, then retrospectively seek reasons to justify their opinion after the fact. In other words, people, generally, cherrypick evidence for their opinions, rather than picking opinions for their evidence. A good sign this is occuring is when the reasons provided are vague, the prevalence of that negative outcome is rare, or are hypothetical scenarios which rely on companies or people behaving in unlikely and unnatural ways (like ignoring broader incentives). The result is luddite-ism, and proposals exactly like this one, whereby regulations are proposed even in the absence meaningful and demonstrable harm.
rapind 2y ago
> I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons. It would be so embarrassing if your AI Girlfriend / Boyfriend turned out to be real.
- arkis22 2y ago
  your AI girlfriend/boyfriend is totally real, its just that its a south east asian who works at a pig butchering scam farm. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/06/the-vast-sophisticated-and-fast-growing-global-enterprise-that-is-scam-inc https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/06/the-vast-sophis... https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-m...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
EFreethought 2y ago
To paraphrase a line in the Bible: Are the bots here for the benefit of man, or is man here for the benefit of the bots?
comex 2y ago
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.
banku_brougham 2y ago
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.

hunter2_ 2y ago

Your sentiment reminds me of this: https://www.goingconcern.com/when-ai-stands-for-actually-indians/ https://www.goingconcern.com/when-ai-stands-for-actually-ind...

Galatians4_16 2y ago

Freeze Peach says I can be a bot if I want to.

chrisco255 2y ago

Some humans pull it off very well.

BobbyTables2 2y ago

I’ve had a number of encounters with ISP tech support where the humans seemed a lot like bots…

pishpash 2y ago
All support is basically like bots nowadays, that's why they can be replaced by bots so easily.
- scarab92 2y ago
  It's all neural nets. The differences are just implementation details (i.e. whether the transistors are carbon or silicon based).
rightbyte 2y ago
I think they used to have a lot of canned responses which made them feel like bots.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

> 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?

InfinityByTen 2y ago
[dead]
MobiusHorizons 2y ago
Probably the main risk would be people trusting what they think to be an automated system and trusting it to act for a specific purpose. That or people saying things they think should be private. I’m not saying it’s actually safe to interact this way with bots, but the trust expectations are different enough.
hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
Privacy
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
scarab92 2y ago
What you'll find is that most people form a knee jerk opinion first, most often in opposition to change, then retrospectively seek reasons to justify their opinion after the fact. In other words, people, generally, cherrypick evidence for their opinions, rather than picking opinions for their evidence. A good sign this is occuring is when the reasons provided are vague, the prevalence of that negative outcome is rare, or are hypothetical scenarios which rely on companies or people behaving in unlikely and unnatural ways (like ignoring broader incentives). The result is luddite-ism, and proposals exactly like this one, whereby regulations are proposed even in the absence meaningful and demonstrable harm.

rapind 2y ago

> I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons. It would be so embarrassing if your AI Girlfriend / Boyfriend turned out to be real.

arkis22 2y ago
your AI girlfriend/boyfriend is totally real, its just that its a south east asian who works at a pig butchering scam farm. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/06/the-vast-sophisticated-and-fast-growing-global-enterprise-that-is-scam-inc https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/06/the-vast-sophis... https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-may-already-be-as-big-a-scourge-as-illegal-drugs https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-m...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

EFreethought 2y ago

To paraphrase a line in the Bible: Are the bots here for the benefit of man, or is man here for the benefit of the bots?

comex 2y ago

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.

banku_brougham 2y ago

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.