California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

Re:California bill would require bots to disclose that they ... by pishpash on Thursday February 06, 2025 @10:43PM (#42969127)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bill would require bots to disclose that they ... by thfuran on Thursday February 06, 2025 @10:48PM (#42969147)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bill would require bots to disclose that they ... by yellowapple on Saturday February 08, 2025 @08:30PM (#42987714)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bill would require bots to disclose that they ... by johnnyanmac on Friday February 07, 2025 @12:30AM (#42969724)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bill would require bots to disclose that they ... by scarab92 on Friday February 07, 2025 @12:42AM (#42969791)

Discriminate just means differentiate.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]