> It’s deaccelerationist, and that’s a bad thing

This sounds like a religious position, not something which will lead to positive conversation. I would consider whether your personal biases are causing you to interpret this as an attack and miss some perspective: for example, if these are useful tools would it really lead to discrimination? If they’re actually better tools, I’d think “bot” would have a positive connotation just as most people jumped to using the web instead of calling businesses on the phone.

I think a better comparison would be product labeling and disclosure laws, where there are very few examples where reducing the information available to consumers leads to better outcomes. People don’t care about whether something is made by hand or machine anywhere near as much as they care about the quality of the final product. The reason people care about talking to bots is that they’re often used to worsen service and people do not want to waste their time on a bot which cannot help them. This seems entirely fair.

>It’s akin to requiring manufacturers to disclose whether a product is hand made or whether machines were used to reduce the need for humans to do repetitive manual labour.

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).

But the discrimination angle is interesting. What if a law required everyone to be "transparent" and respond truthfully to "are you [some race]"?

I don't really see the analogy, unless you're arguing that chatgpt deserves human rights.

At some point AIs will be smart enough that they might very well deserve human rights. That point's probably sooner than any of us expect.

But a bot isn't a human. It doesn't have any rights nor even indirect rights like animals do. It's a tool and I don't see anything wrong with tools being clear about what they are. And I especially do not like beokg tricked by a non-human pretending to be human.

Discriminate just means differentiate.

The parent comment isn't talking about race, they are talking about discriminating between human and human tool (bot).

I don't understand your angle at all. How would disclosing that it's a bot make a bot less helpful or less of a useful tool, except to deceive for someone else's gain?

So firstly the idea that context shouldn't affect people's views on things (like whether a good is handmade or not) just doesn't match up with how people actually interact with and perceive the world. I mean obviously I'll feel different about my copy of Calvin and Hobbs I read as a child versus a random copy in a store. I would even go as far to say that as a human it's impossible to fully separate objects from their perceived context.

For bots specifically, many bots try to pass themselves off as human because the people that created them know that that lie matters. There's room for debate about what's the best specific policy but the mere fact that bots so often try to pass themselves off as human is their creators admitting that it's important.

I think this is a just law for any bot that interacts with humans. It doesn't make sense for a person to treat a bot as another human.

I feel like “using automation to make manufacturing more efficient” and “using automation to respond to customer support” are very different things

Up close they look very diff rent.

A bit farther away both end up being the same — “using automation to make executives insanely rich”.

Impersonating humans is creepy, unnecessary and a bad business practice that creates negative customer experiences that are likely to result in a hostile response. This law is only necessary because of incompetent management making decisions for short term profit at the expense of reputation and long term growth.

Transparency that allows consumers to make their own, informed decisions is "discrimination against useful tools"? What the fuck am I even reading?