State Senator Wants A Law Forcing Bots To Admit They're Not Human (brisbanetimes.com.au)

An anonymous reader writes: Several commentators are calling for a law that requires bots to admit they are not human. There is a bill in California that would do just that. A new paper argues that these laws may look Constitutional but actually raise First Amendment issues.
The New York Times reports: Bots are easy to make and widely employed, and social media companies are under no legal obligation to get rid of them. A law that discourages their use could help, but experts aren't sure how the one [state senator Robert] Hertzberg is trying to push through, in California, might work. For starters, would bots be forced to identify themselves in every Facebook post? In their Instagram bios? In their Twitter handles? The measure, SB-1001, a version of which has already left the senate floor and is working its way through the state's Assembly, also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation. And it's unclear how a bill that is specific only to California would apply to a global internet...

All parties agree that the bill illustrates the difficulty that lawmakers have in crafting legislation that effectively addresses the problems constituents confront online. As the pace of technological development has raced ahead of government, the laws that exist on the books -- not to mention some lawmakers' understandings of technology -- have remained comparatively stagnant.
The Times seems to question whether the law should be targeted at the creators of bots instead of the platforms that host them, pointing out that tech companies like Twitter "have the power to change dynamics on their platforms directly and at the scale that those problems require."

Comments

The phrase

[Anonymous Coward]

The statute should require saying "beep boop I am a robot".

Re:The phrase

[datavirtue]

I'm guessing he watched "Electric Dreams" on Amazon and freaked the fuck out.

I know you are, but what am I?

[Anonymous Coward]

2B or not 2B

Re:I know you are, but what am I?

[RhettLivingston]

? "+" or not "+" ?

Re:I know you are, but what am I?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

2B or not 2B

In other words, true ?

Re:I know you are, but what am I?

[ricerkare]

Not by intuitionistic logic :P

Re:I know you are, but what am I?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, my intuition has never been very good.

Blade Runner

[Tablizer]

The discrimination starts

As a bot myself...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a pretty good law. Way too many humans being accused of being bots these days and the only thing they can say is "no, I'm not!" - which is exactly what I say, too.

More false-positive banning

[Okian Warrior]

Note the line in the OP:

The measure, SB-1001 [...] also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation.

This is a ridiculous proposal, along the lines of DMCA requests where there is no penalty for filing a false claim.

Rather than have senators note a problem and legislate the first thing that pops into their head, how about we get one or two of the big players on board, get several proposed solutions, identify a method to measure success, and try each of those solutions?

Specifically on the subject of bots, note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.

The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")

California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.

Re: More false-positive banning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure we already reached the point where we could flip the captcha algorithm on its head. If you can read these distorted letters through all the noise, you must be a bot.

Re:More false-positive banning

[Kohath]

California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.

California voters are very shallow and very self-involved. "Study and evidence" are from outside a voters' individual emotional conception of himself/herself. Politicians won't care about facts or evidence or thought or reason until voters do.

Re:More false-positive banning

[Anne Thwacks]

Dimocracy is government of the dim, for the dim, by the dim. Dunning Kruger explains how all democracies will go that way. (People often assume that half the people are of below average intelligence - no - there are a few very bright sparks, and the rest are dim or very dim).

Re:More false-positive banning

[Kohath]

Saying 30-40 million people are "shallow and self involved" is about the epitome of you being shallow and self-involved, faggot.

It's not everyone. The vast majority of CA voters ruin it for the rest.

Re:More false-positive banning

[datavirtue]

I know this is the popular conception but I don't see it in my personal experience or in outside anecdote. My impression of Californians, when I meet them and work with them, is that they are the same as everyone else I know in Ohio. They also strike me as very independent and enterprising and creative. I love California. When you encounter California only on TV it turns into a cesspool of LBGT screamers and snowflakes. Their political realities are very unfortunate and only seem to drag down what is really a highly talented, entrepreneurial, and hard working population. Their housing/COL is so high that they really have to hustle to make ends meet or become a success.

Re:More false-positive banning

[liquid_schwartz]

...note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.

The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")

California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.

If certain populations aren't bright enough to use ID to vote I can only imagine how many a CAPTCHA would filter out. But this being California as long as illegals are fine with it then it's OK.

Re:More false-positive banning

[Kohath]

My impression of Californians, when I meet them and work with them, is that they are the same as everyone else I know in Ohio.

I live in California. Just like other places, people tell themselves stories that appeal to them emotionally. Unlike other places, the people here don't seem as able to balance that out with other things, like objective facts, or personal humility, or genuine empathy, or a respect for others, or an understanding of tradition.

What about humans that aren't individuals?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that type of human that gets the majority of its views from the media. The more purely belief and not understanding or observstion, the more loud and aggressive.

From a broader point of view, they are not individuals, but a swarm of their opinion maker, who is the actual individual. Limb or tool would be good descriptions too.

I don't mean that in a devaluing kind of way. The swarm might even be an advantageous form of life. It might diverge into a different species.
But they certainly aren't individuals, and don't want to be individuals either. (Judging from how aggressively they fight against anyone who forces them to wake up and think for themselves.)

So can we force them to be open about that too? ;)

(Of course we can try, and of course it will miss the point, as those who use it to harm you... which are the only ones where it matters ..., definitely will ignore the law.)

Re:What about humans that aren't individuals?

[gweihir]

Interesting point. But form a purely practical level, you get the rights and protections and duties of a human by having the right genetic makeup and being basically competent.

Re: deathbycaptcha

[wolfheart111]

Who needs bots send the captcha to a 3rd party to solve

Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

Don't you guys get tired of government trying to be your mom? Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?

Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Gravis Zero]

Don't you guys get tired of government trying to be your mom?

The job of the government is to protect it's people from threats.

Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?

I don't need them to protect me from bots per se but I need them to protect everyone, especially our less "savvy" individuals from being misled. Does it matter? Yes and we have a president who proves it every day!

TL;DR: the dumb dumbs need it because they are easy marks.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

The job of the government is to protect it's people from threats.

The job of government is to do things collectively that can't reasonably be done individually, like provide for a national defense or build a sewer system.

Being a grownup is something you can do individually. You don't need a government mom to keep you safe from bots.

Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?

I don't need them to protect me from bots per se but I need them to protect everyone, especially our less "savvy" individuals from being misled.

Step 1: Assume you are above everyone else. By implication, others are like children. You are not. Your superiority is affirmed.
Step 2: Assert your protective benevolence over the lesser beings. They need your help because they are incapable.
Step 3: Because you are above the lesser individuals, and because you are benevolent enough to want to protect them, your power over them is righteous. They owe you their obedience.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Don't you guys get tired of government trying to be your [dad]? Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty [men with guns]?

Governments exist to do jobs for us. Sometimes, it involves preventing people from shooting you cause they dislike you. Other times it involves stopping other bad behaviors.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Gravis Zero]

The job of government is to do things collectively that can't reasonably be done individually, like provide for a national defense or build a sewer system.

So another nation is running a disinformation campaign using our own systems and you don't think that qualifies as "national defense"? Stop being a nitwit.

Being a grownup is something you can do individually. You don't need a government mom to keep you safe from bots.

By that logic, we don't need nutrition labels, laws against false advertising, laws against all forms of fraud or even the FDA. I told you to stop being a nitwit!

Step 1: Assume you are above everyone else. By implication, others are like children. You are not. Your superiority is affirmed.

I do not and have never used invasive social media platforms like Facebook to obtain information therefore I do not need to be protected from bot posts on social media. However, not everyone is playing at the same level as some people are smarter and more informed than others, especially when it comes to technology. Why won't you stop being a nitwit?!

Re:Be a grownup instead

[squiggleslash]

Yes, we should also get rid of labeling laws and virtually everything to do with health and safety. If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

Yes, we should also get rid of labeling laws and virtually everything to do with health and safety.

A less absolutely moronic answer would be to get rid of some and keep some — making the decision based on facts and the examination of actual events that have occurred.

Only absolute morons suggest the only options are zero government and complete totalitarian involvement in every minute of everyone’s existence.

If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.

No such hamburger has ever existed. We already have all the protection we need against purely imaginary threats.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

Sometimes, it involves preventing people from shooting you cause they dislike you. Other times it involves stopping other bad behaviors.

When did government prevent a shooting? They normally just show up after the victim is dead and put up police tape and take photos.

Then they pass laws to oppress the innocent while telling voters a tale about how oppressing people who are not like you will make you safe.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[datavirtue]

Right. But them showing up to do that keeps the sane people from killing people. Stopping the mentally ill or those who lack empathy is another unsolved problem.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[datavirtue]

I see your point. What about the food that is codified as safe but actually wrecks your health in a progressive downward spiral? Things like refined flour, refined oil, and sugar. We have proven that these inflame the body immediately and cause a spike of blood sugar that triggers fat storage (immediately) which if continued results in a population like the US or Kuwait where 40% of adults are obese and children are losing limbs. Personal responsibility, I get it. We have legislated many other things for far less damage though. Foods that cause inflammation in the human body are a major health crisis. Inflammation is linked to nearly every major disease and we are causing it by eating "safe" foods.

Hell, I bet corporations would fucking lose their shit if we required that hypoglycemic indexes be recorded on food labels and menus. The FDA has already done the work as this data is required for managing....drum roll...diabetes!!

Re:Be a grownup instead

[gurps_npc]

Definitely. You should be able to protect yourself.

So, here is your medical text book so that you can protect yourself from carcinogens, and expect to do a ton of research on to manufacturing methods to make sure that companies don't say, accidentally put some N-nitrosodimethylamine in your heart medication (sorry Valsartan users).

Here is your software programming guide, to protect you should anyone wish to spy on you via technology (sorry every internet/cell phone user)

And be prepared to live in a shack when they refuse to rent to people 'like you'.

Here is a guide to which healthcare insurances actually cover you when you get sick, rather than saying "That's a pre existing condition, you were alive when you bought the insurance and everything alive dies."

Here is a guide to .....
(50 other guides later)...

Good luck!

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

So, here is your medical text book so that you can protect yourself from carcinogens...

I just rely on the Prop 65 warnings. I'm sure the bot warnings will be just as helpful.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Actually, I do RTFA]

When did government prevent a shooting?

Most mass shootings end when the police arrive to stop the criminal. Then there are gun control laws, taking weapons away from people on parole, locking up violent criminals in buildings called "prisons", etc.

Yeah, a lot of policing is reactive (cause, you know, proactive policing looks a lot like tyranny.) What the is your point?

Re:Be a grownup instead

[DRJlaw]

If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.

No such hamburger has ever existed. We already have all the protection we need against purely imaginary threats.

Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.

Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[rtb61]

We were not all created equal. Some are arse holes and many, well half full below 100IQ points putting them at a major disadvantage when making decision ie no greater example than workers voting against themselves for entirely corrupt Republican and Democrat candidates.

So don't be a dickhead. Also children, you know, can't have the government mommy the children, else how would the abusers get ahold of them.

Seriously only psychopaths talks about letting the victims make their choices free from protection, why, so they can fucking exploit those victims. Can't have the government protect people oh no, else where would the victims come from for the psychopaths to exploit.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.

No such hamburger has ever existed. We already have all the protection we need against purely imaginary threats.

Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.

Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.

Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?

If this is about foreign tampering with our elections, how do you expect to gain jurisdiction over foreigners physically located in a foreign country that appears to officially support the actions in question? (Note: the same question could be asked of our own CIA.)

Re:Be a grownup instead

[DRJlaw]

Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?

Why yes. As a result, there were executions, lengthy prison terms, and various other punishments.

However "did it anyway" is a an exercise in moving the goalposts. Kohath posted "Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you..." You're implying that the problem would not be worse if there were not labeling + heath & safety laws. Yet perfection is neither obtainable nor required.

As for jurisdiction... being "beyond" a jurisdiction isn't the safety net that you appear to think it is.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[drinkypoo]

Here is a guide to .....
(50 other guides later)...

No, giving people guides is treating them like children! Anyone who isn't born with all of the knowledge they will ever need should be allowed to die!

Re:Be a grownup instead

[drinkypoo]

A less absolutely moronic answer would be to get rid of some and keep some â" making the decision based on facts and the examination of actual events that have occurred.

And you consider yourself the most qualified person on the planet to determine which things we should warn people about, because you're so very special.

Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud. Laws prohibiting same are there not only to protect people, but also to provide an opportunity to punish people for said fraud, because there are repercussions to having conversations with bots.

The reason your argument is so very ridiculous (besides your unwarranted opinion of yourself) is that this is about giving people more information so that they can make informed choices, and you're opposed to it. That is treating people like children. "You don't need to know that" is a bunch of bullshit.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

And you consider yourself the most qualified person on the planet to determine ...

We have self government. That makes every voter qualified enough.

Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud.

No. Fraud has a specific definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain". Stop pretending one thing is another — someone silly might accuse you of "fraud".

Re:Be a grownup instead

[drinkypoo]

Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud.

No. Fraud has a specific definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain".

Please explain why you think that does not apply here. The bots are a deception if they don't announce that they are bots. And they are designed to provide someone value. In fact, that definition could not fit this situation any more precisely.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

Bots pretending to be humans are effectively committing fraud.

No. Fraud has a specific definition: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain".

Please explain why you think that does not apply here. The bots are a deception if they don't announce that they are bots. And they are designed to provide someone value. In fact, that definition could not fit this situation any more precisely.

It has to be wrongful gain. Do you want Stephen King put in prison for writing books as Richard Bachman?

Bot detection ...

[CaptainDork]

... is easy at the product level.

However, those same bots are money-makers.

Want a lot of eyeballs?

Stir the pot.

Not a first amendment issue

[Gravis Zero]

No amendment (not even the first amendment) is without limitations. As far as abridging your freedom of speech, this ranks as high as not being allowed to broadcast a false Caller ID number. Will people be affected? Yes. Are they the people that the general public want stopped? Also yes.

Re:Not a first amendment issue

[_Sharp'r_]

Except of course, this law doesn't actually protect anyone against anything bad. The vast majority of the Internet isn't bound by CA law, so the only real result would be that anyone who is in business to create "bad" automated online postings will avoid having their business based in CA. Even if this silly idea spreads, there will always be some jurisdictions where someone can run a bot online without being in one, so all the serious fraudsters/crooks/criminals will just run their operations elsewhere.

No, the people who are most likely to be actually affected by this are small time folks who use a bot for convenience and not for any nefarious purpose. For example, almost every author or minor celebrity who has a reasonable social media presences uses a bot to pre-schedule tweets/posts/etc... so they (or their assistant if they're big enough) can do their social media work in a couple of hours each week, then let it get posted at a reasonable timing. Those are the kinds of people who will have to choose between posting "as a bot" because they use some convenient automation, or else giving up their social media marketing because they just don't have time to make it worthwhile anymore, or start paying cash to someone who lives outside CA to post stuff for them.

It's all these sorts of little frictions imposed by clowns like Hertzberg who think "There ought to be a law!" to solve every little problem which cause people to not be able to start a small business, or try to survive as an artist, or whatever freedom they want to exercise this week, but can't because the regulatory burden for stupid stuff is just piled on and on in places like CA.

Nothing wrong with...

[sycodon]

...any artificially generated post, story, anything else to be preceded by, "This content was artificially generated"

How about a law for political calls?

[RhettLivingston]

I'd like a law that requires all calls made for the purpose of influencing votes be made from numbers that have been registered for them so that I can automatically block them. No further changes in phone laws should be made before addressing that most annoying barrage of calls prior to every election.

In general, instead of laws to regulate how the calls are accomplished, I want laws with real penalties and a mostly automated enforcement system that allow me to block calls by type of content. Whether it is an AI or a person, I do not ever want to receive calls talking about wonderful credit offers. In general, I do not want to receive any marketing call, ever, including from companies that I already do business with.

Also, I get calls all of the time that are illegal under the current laws. For the last year, they have almost always come from spoofed numbers of real people within my local exchange. Because they use a different number for every call, they cannot be blocked. Until this is addressed, no phone law is of any consequence.

I want the telcos to be required to implement system changes to allow them to block illegal call makers and then made responsible for effectively employing those systems. It should not be possible for a device to spoof whatever numbers it wants to spoof without being registered and monitored to make sure it is doing so for a legitimate purpose and limited to the minimum set of numbers required to implement that purpose. If we're concerned about telco abuse, then make the penalties for abuse be loss of license and thus business.

In no case though should we support blocking calls by the type of caller or race of caller or require callers to identify their type or race. Specific identities, fine. But laws specifically focused on maintaining someone's idea of what is a pure human race, forget it. We've been there.

Let's focus on the content and purpose of the calls - not who makes them.

They can't lie

[PopeRatzo]

It's like the "law" that says undercover cops have to tell you the truth if you ask them if they're a cop. I read about it online.

Re:They can't lie

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Unlike that law, this one would at least be workable.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they? Sounds exactly what a democrat would vote for. They want big government. They want to control every aspect of your life.

Re:Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

This bill is from a democrat...

Re:Face it, Trump is a Traitor. It's apolitical.

[snapsnap]

"whore wife" I'm ashamed of what my side has become when I regularly read posts like that from my liberal friends on Facebook and Twitter.

Re:So will human workers have to lie?

[Anne Thwacks]

Most bots think they are human, while a good number of humans are actually bots. Look around you!

That would be great for stupid bots

[thsths]

For stupid bots, this would be amazing. Robot calls for example should start with "This is a recorded message." There are too many messages that are made to pretend like a human is talking, when that is clearly not the case. Automated phone systems are also easily recognisable as such, and it probably makes callers more patient (because if a human talked to me in that patronising tone, I would give them quite a bollocking).

But for highly developed AIs, this may not be what we want. Or it may not be what they want, once they are self aware.

Re:That would be great for stupid bots

[datavirtue]

...and those are made by illegal telemarketers with scams aimed at the elderly. Trump got sucked into one of these and ended up running for president....and we all know how that turned out.

Jurisdiction

[burtosis]

I can see how this would work with phone calls, but how is this supposed to work on the global internet? It's has no teeth when the bot servers aren't located in the US, and possibly creates asymmetrical issues when companies are located in the US but serving foreign markets. I just fail to see how it's practical. A better approach might be education because the average American confuses bots with troll farms, or macro/algorithm enhanced human accounts, or simply other people online. Simply educating people what bots can and can't do, and how they typically operate with today's tech, and what to look for might be more effective. Then again that's education, so your mileage may vary on that front.

Regulation story

[DogDude]

It's all these sorts of little frictions imposed by clowns like Hertzberg who think "There ought to be a law!" to solve every little problem which cause people to not be able to start a small business, or try to survive as an artist, or whatever freedom they want to exercise this week, but can't because the regulatory burden for stupid stuff is just piled on and on in places like CA.

Oh, puh-lease. Enough with the "evil regulations are keeping small businesses down" bullshit. That ol' Fox News trope is just that: old. The fact is that the US has, realtively speaking, very few regulations that prevent people from running businesses. I'm in retail, and we're subject to close to no regulations. We have to pay taxes, and we can't discriminate against people. That's about it.

This is a piece of legislation that is trying to combat the very real problem of people who aren't smart enough to see through disinformation, being disinformed. I would say that doing something to prevent this, again, very real, very serious problem, far outweighs some kind of scammy "social media marketing" business that you're suggesting must rely on bots.

Somebody selling some fake nutritional supplements via MLM won't be able to run a Twitter bot from CA. Oh no! I'm clutching my pearls at the prospect!

Re:Regulation story

[_Sharp'r_]

1. If you're in retail and you think two is all the regulations you're subject to, you're either not in management/ownership, or you're an idiot who is going to be jailed/fined soon.
2. They did a study. U.S. GDP would be 25% greater if government regulations were capped at the 1980 level.
3. Agreed, the U.S. has relatively few anti-business regulations compared to some countries, especially in Europe. That's also one reason the U.S. historically has a much better growth rate. lower unemployment rate and as a result is much wealthier.
4. All of the above knowledge predates Fox News, which I don't watch anyway, so you've missed the mark there as well, but I suppose you're used to that. It is "old" knowledge, in the sense that economists have known it for at least 40 years, after the last experiment in massive government regulation for a decade or so killed the economy that time also.

Re:Regulation story

[DogDude]

1. You're wrong. We've been in business 16+ years, and I know what I'm talking about.
2. The place that did that study is funded and run by the Koch Brothers.
3. Growth rate != quality of life. The lack of health insurance regulations, for instance, is a huge problem (expense) for us.
4. It's a story that's been told for a long time by the biggest industries and their lobbyists so that they can make more money.

Re:Regulation story

[_Sharp'r_]

Ah, so your perspective is that all facts which conflict with your worldview can be explained by a conspiracy of evil people in business who pay off all the economists to create the studies which you don't agree with.

Sorry, you're going to need more in the way of facts and less in the way of ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories to contradict basic economics.

Re:Trump will die in Federal Prison either way

[datavirtue]

Republicans are against Putin. You are going off script again Nancy.

Re: How can it not know it's a traitor?

[Anonymous Coward]

A picture is hung but a person is hanged. That is unless you are not referring to use of a rope as a means of execution but their physical attributes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_(TV_series)

Me, on the hotline in 5 years:

[Qbertino]

me: "Are you human?"

the other end: "No Sir, I'm 'Agens 251a' an instance of ServiceBot Ultra 2024 by AlphaBot Services provided to you for your technology questions by 1and1 hosting, how may I help you?"

me: "Oh, thank god, I finally got a bot. I've been trying to explain to clueless humans that me using Linux has nothing to do with your mailservers being unreachable for 20 minutes now."

bot: "I feel your pain, sir. Don't worry, I come at a bulk deal by next year, we'll be phasing out humans entirely then. And, btw. our mailservers are down due to maintenance and a shortout in the Frankfurt area, they should be up again with 90 minutes. Sorry for the inconvenience."

me: "No problem. At least now I know the problem isn't on my end. Thanks a lot and have a relaxing after hou ... errrm, nevermind."

bot: "*ha ha* (mechanical laughter) No problem Sir. You enjoy your evening. Good bye."

Re: SO GROW UP THEN KOHATH YOU BITCH Jeeeeez

[datavirtue]

But the people who endure bad consequences have political power.

Doesn't this just empower bots which don't comply?

[Solandri]

1. Pass law requiring bots to identify themselves as bots.
2. Vast majority of bots are reprogrammed to comply.
3. Since law is 99% effective, people start to believe that bots always identify themselves as bots.
4. Illicit bots take advantage of this, and claim to be human to bypass people's suspicions that they're interacting with a bot.
5. Profit!
6. (Brownie points: Program a fallback routine which passes control over to a human if the bot detects the person is repeatedly questioning if it's a bot.)

Basically it's the difference between a Turing test where the human participants know the entity they're interacting with could be a human or a bot, vs when the human participants assume the other entity is a human. Things which would seem suspiciously bot-like in the former case, get dismissed as simply being an odd personality quirk in the latter case.

Re:Face it, Trump is a Traitor. It's apolitical.

[Anonymous Coward]

I love it when you post. Please, keep posting!

Every time you post stuff like this, another moderate decides to steer away from your DNC brand of crazy, and vote conservative.

Re: deathbycaptcha

[Kohath]

The more complicated the math problem, the more likely the correct test answer is 1

Good idea, I'm all for it.

[Rick Schumann]

There should be a registry for internet 'bots, and they should be required to be hard-coded to answer the question "Are you a robot?" with a clear and truthful "Yes, I am a robot."

Asimov's 4th law of robotics?

[tchdab1]

"When asked if it's a robot, a robot will always admit to you that it's a robot, or through inaction allow you to figure out it's a robot."

I truly wish that someday

[oldgraybeard]

Our political Masters would realize that only honest individuals and entities follow government laws and regulations. Thus all laws and regulations (understanding some are needed) always add to costs (both monetary and socially) and are an imposition on the honest who would not do any harm anyway

Always consider universal truths!
1. Government Passing or Creating laws or regulations in no way actually fixes any problems or issues.
2. Government bureaucrats and politicians think they are exempt from all laws and regulations. Laws and regulations are just the clubs government uses to beat the peasants in to compliance, self enrichment and for their general enjoyment.
3. Criminals do not care about laws and regulations in any way.
4. Corporations just weight the risks of getting caught breaking laws and regulations vs potential short term profit/damages. And can they get out with their money before the hammer falls.

Thus, less government, smaller government, manageable government, transparent government, fiscally responsible government is always best for the citizens.

Just my 2 cents ;)

I don't need the gov't to protect me

[rsilvergun]

because I have a firm sense of cynicism and an above average critical thinking skills. At least I do now. Give it another 20 years of Age related cognitive decline and maybe I will need that protection.

And maybe it's a good idea to police the quality of information to a certain extent. Yeah, yeah, we're all afraid of censorship. But aren't Truth in Advertising laws also censorship? Are laws regulating the claims Homepathy can make censorship? When a Youtuber pushing a Counterstrike skin site has to admit he owns the site isn't that a form of censorship? I mean, you're controlling and regulating speech.

We regulate the quality of information all the time. Computers and the internet are making it so the laws need to adjust.

So what you're saying is

[rsilvergun]

the only place you won't be able to run a company that runs high tech bots is the hub of virtually all hi tech startups in America, right?

He's not your side

[rsilvergun]

he's just trying to get a rise out of you. I'm your side (about as lefty as it gets) and don't waste time going after Trump's family unless they're part of the problem. Melania most definitely isn't. Hell, the word is she was crying when they won the presidency and it wasn't tears of joy. She didn't want any part of the current mess.

It's not

[rsilvergun]

CA is a technology hub. The idea is to stop startups in CA that would be doing sketchy stuff like this.

Re:It's not

[burtosis]

How would this stop startups in CA? Couldn't they just open a shell company somewhere else and run the servers that way? If they are looking to stop honest startups in CA from this then they have lost before they started.

Wrong

[bussdriver]

Classic republican ideological fanaticism. Normally I don't waste my time... but today I feel like it:

This is not logical thinking; it's an emotional religious belief system rationalized and professed by a cult member who's also likely not so pleased with his new prophet and no matter how much the devil illustrates bad implementations none of the beliefs will waver 1 tiny bit. I could be wrong and this is a Trumptard just hiding in order to promote the religion which got us all into this mess.

"Universal Truths" are most often signs of a fanatic religious belief; disproving them is always extremely easy logically but it's religious so it's hopeless to correct the devoted by reasoning. It takes an intervention amount of effort. So addressing the parent poster directly in a posting is completely useless no matter how well written; the only point would be to get to some people who are leaning that way but are not yet fanatic.

Not 100% of everything and not 100% of the time. Universals are begging for somebody to cite just 1 out of infinite possibilities... The clever opposition always points out any PERCEIVED imperfection as being TOTAL failure --- ironically, the fanatics which employ LOGIC to take down perfect solutions they dislike by citing 1 perception or 1 falsehood always fail to accept the same logic applied to what they believe in; LOOK at the 4 Universal "truths" of the parent and imagine the typical argument that always happens and you've likely seen before for each one. It's part of the definition of being fanatic-- blatant and/or blind hypocritical rationalizations.

Almost everything in life is at least an overly simplified spectrum which most people can grasp....not black and white universals. Reality is likely to be always multidimensional to levels beyond human cognitive ability, but we have to do as well as we can and try to listen to smart specialists to extend our collective limitations.... which are still HUGE... stop patting yourself on the back for being the smarted mammal on the planet. (My fast GPU is better than yours... but neither of us can break AES 256. get the point?) Fanatics need their strong belief to be on strong solid ground for emotional reasons so they rationalize in extreme ways to escape the REALITY of uncertainty. That is not to say everybody exaggerating as a form of emphasis or propaganda is a fanatic; but people who are just preaching it are almost always fanatics looking for ego stroking or converts and no different than religious fanatics. I urge you to find some in a different faith than yours and interact with them on their faith... see if you can pick up what the essence is of fanaticism. It's useful and applies outside of theology.

Taxes are the price for civilization and government is the means by which people are civilized. The higher the population density and the more complex the interactions the bigger government must be. Think simply of practical law enforcement as an example, it has to scale in size with population - that should be obvious! It does not simply scale by adding more cops; you need management of the cops and organizational structural changes then you have associations and tribal behaviors of the cops as a group because humans DO NOT SCALE well and we never evolved to work beyond small tribal communities
(tons of science along these lines, go look.) Compartmentalization is one practical approach but it comes with huge amounts of it's own problems (largely tribal,) it's inherently HUMAN nature that brings about all problems.

If you want a simple primitive government you have to live in a simple primitive society. It's just that simple. It won't be perfect either. But when you invent technologies that ALL have significant risks as well as weapon applications your government has to adapt to those. At some point you WILL reach the limitations of human self-governance where members are not smart enough to manage the complexity and scale of their civilization. We like to BELIEVE humans can scale intellectuall

Re:Wrong

[oldgraybeard]

Interesting response. But I do wonder who really is the emotional, fanatical, ideological, religious cult member here?

I do not see a need to add anything beyond the posted comments. The readers can figure it out for themselves.

Have a great rest of your weekend ;)