Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Bots Be Required To Tell You That They're Not Human? (buzzfeednews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the are-you-a-cop dept.

"BuzzFeed has this story about proposals to make social media bots identify themselves as fake people," writes an anonymous Slashdot reader. "[It's] based on a paper by a law professor and a fellow researcher." From the report: General concerns about the ethical implications of misleading people with convincingly humanlike bots, as well as specific concerns about the extensive use of bots in the 2016 election, have led many to call for rules regulating the manner in which bots interact with the world. "An AI system must clearly disclose that it is not human," the president of the Allen Institute on Artificial Intelligence, hardly a Luddite, argued in the New York Times. Legislators in California and elsewhere have taken up such calls. SB-1001, a bill that comfortably passed the California Senate, would effectively require bots to disclose that they are not people in many settings. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced a similar bill for consideration in the United States Senate.

In our essay, we outline several principles for regulating bot speech. Free from the formal limits of the First Amendment, online platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have more leeway to regulate automated misbehavior. These platforms may be better positioned to address bots' unique and systematic impacts. Browser extensions, platform settings, and other tools could be used to filter or minimize undesirable bot speech more effectively and without requiring government intervention that could potentially run afoul of the First Amendment. A better role for government might be to hold platforms accountable for doing too little to address legitimate societal concerns over automated speech. [A]ny regulatory effort to domesticate the problem of bots must be sensitive to free speech concerns and justified in reference to the harms bots present. Blanket calls for bot disclosure to date lack the subtlety needed to address bot speech effectively without raising the specter of censorship.

42 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Or, if you’re a Betteridge adherent by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Feel free to rephrase as “Should bots be programmed in a manner which might lead people to assume they are human?” if that gives you the answer you’d prefer.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Or, if you’re a Betteridge adherent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget: To what stupid degree does this have to be enforced? When I load google.com, does it have to say at the bottom: "This page was generated and served to you by a script, sometimes referred to as a bot."

      When I pull up to a traffic light, does it have to blast in an annoying tone to all drivers: "This traffic intersection is controlled by a bot."

      If for some bizarre reason, I decide to step into a bank teller's office, will they have to have over the loudspeakers: "Your bank balance is kept track of by a bot."

      When you start your car, does it have to say: "This car's emission control system is controlled by a bot."

      This can get REALLY ANNOYING pretty freaking fast. Most people don't even realize how many computers they interact with on a day-to-day basis.

      The other way this can go is: enforced very weakly, and none of the above happens, but it's enforced when it's convenient (or serves some special interest) to enforce.

    2. Re:Or, if you’re a Betteridge adherent by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I prefer to rephrase it "should deception be illegal?"

  2. They're people by maralatho · · Score: 2

    Five bucks says the Supreme Court will rule that bots, like corporations, are people.

    1. Re:They're people by clovis · · Score: 1

      Five bucks says the Supreme Court will rule that bots, like corporations, are people.

      The supreme did not rule that corporations are people. What they said was that corporations have the same rights as other organizations, so if the law allows unions, charities, 501c and other such groups to fund or engage in issue advocacy, then corporations have the same rights to do so.

      Anyway, I would not take your bet because I think you predict correctly. I can see how scotus might find a way to rule that although bots are not people, they are acting as agents for people and rule that bots have free speech rights, which includes the right to tell lies about their identity.

  3. If AI == Person Then Person == AI by ememisya · · Score: 1

    If you sound like a person, and act like a person, I'm going to assume you're a person. If there exists an AI where I am entirely unable to discern the difference between it and a person, then it's time we start declaring AI as persons. Now, if it's just a number of spam bots, or a bot swarm trying to sway opinion on comments and emails, I highly doubt those people are going to abide by the requirement in the first place. But it's nice to punish them under the law once they are caught. Unless it's a government agency in which case, back to square one.

    1. Re:If AI == Person Then Person == AI by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Ummm.. I can write an AI that tricks you into thinking it's a person, for a reasonablish amount of time.

      The Turning Test is trivial to pass on a short enough timeline, especially if (A) I get to control where and when the conversation occurs, (B) That conversation is usually formulaic anyway (arranging an appointment), and (C) The human in the loop doesn't care that much (e.g. the person taking the appointment at the salon wants off the phone).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re: If AI == Person Then Person == AI by ichifish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I donâ(TM)t think weâ(TM)re at the point where we have to worry about AI rights. Weâ(TM)ll have to cross that bridge, but itâ(TM)s not even built yet. The main issues now are: 1) bots are used to make unpopular ideas seem popular (bandwagon persuasion). 2) bots can diseminate false information without even the trivial disincentive of tying the information to real person. 3) bots are highly efficient tools to incite anger. I think people have a right to know when theyâ(TM)re communicating with a real person. The only reason to deny them that right is because someone is profiting off it.

    3. Re:If AI == Person Then Person == AI by Whibla · · Score: 1

      The Turning (sic) Test is trivial to pass on a short enough timeline ...

      The current day interpretation of the Turing Test might be trivial enough to pass, but...

      ... especially if (A) I get to control where and when the conversation occurs, (B) That conversation is usually formulaic anyway (arranging an appointment), and (C) The human in the loop doesn't care that much (e.g. the person taking the appointment at the salon wants off the phone).

      ...that's not actually the Turing Test.

      I can write an AI that tricks you into thinking it's a person, for a reasonablish amount of time.

      While this might depend on your definition of 'reasonable' I'm going to disagree: No, you really can't. You might be able to write an AI that tricks me into thinking, after a minute or so, that it's a person I have no desire to converse with - but at that point I'm no longer conversing with it.

      I'm not sure I see 'the win'.

      Now, I'm sorry to come across all pedantic, but with a broadening of the terminology comes a weakening of the meaning. I'm not sure that's helpful in an informed discussion of the subject.

    4. Re:If AI == Person Then Person == AI by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      You aren't the average person. How many people do not even reach average? I'm sure there are some talented people on this site that most certainly could create a bot that would pass for human in many fixed roles. Taking orders for food, insurance quotes, loan quotes, low level tech support and many more if I gave it some thought.

      Most "bots" shouldn't be mentioned that because it's not important. If someone can think of a specific scenario where they feel the bot should inform them then maybe that should be looked at an potentially codified into law.

      If the "bot" is following all the laws and is not actually a scam, I don't really see the problem. Depending on the person I have to talk to, I might be better off talking with the bot anyway. Though I rarely ever call a company and hear a foreign ascent anymore. Probably just a coincidence or I'm calling more local businesses.

    5. Re:If AI == Person Then Person == AI by anegg · · Score: 1

      People are independent, conscious and self-aware entities. At this point in time and in the evolution of Artificial Intelligence, we have not yet created synthetic entities that are independent, conscious, and self-aware. Until such point that we do, we should not refer to "bots" or so-called "AI"-based mechanisms in any manner that conveys the impression that these are independent, conscious, and self-aware entities - it only serves to confuse the issues being discussed.

      In contexts where people expect to be conversing with an independent, conscious, and self-aware entity, I think it is a useful distinction to have the mechanism that is merely simulating such an entity be identified as such. This identification would not harm anyone's free speech rights, it would merely make it clear that whoever is "speaking" is doing so through a simulation mechanism and not by themselves, directly.

      At the future point in time when we have created synthetic independent, conscious, and self-aware entities we can have the debate over whether it is a restriction of "free speech" for such an entity to identify itself as synthetic, and whether those entities should have rights the same as the organic naturally-evolved entities of the species homo sapiens. Until then, these proposals are in my opinion only going to make clear that a mechanism that is not independent, conscious, and self-aware is at the other end of a communication when the typical expectation is otherwise, and that is a useful distinction.

    6. Re:If AI == Person Then Person == AI by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I agree that a minute is probably too long to expect an AI to trick you. But the context of this was "should bots (by which the Author means Google Duplex) be forced to identify as a such when they call you." Which is a real life thing that probably is 30 seconds with a bored assistant, or similarly transaction-based exposure. The OP said "well, if I cannot tell the difference, we should just treat them as humans".

      I also should have been more precise in stating, "I can write AI that tricks the vast majority of people."

      But you "having a desire to talk to it" isn't what Google Duplex is about. It's about completing a transaction, and moving on. If Google Duplex was capable of having an hour conversation, one of the first things the developers would add would be how to politely get off the phone.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  4. Extended Laws of Robotics by bosef1 · · Score: 1

    What if the bot doesn't know it's not human?

    Appearantly this idea has already been examined to a small extent in a 1974 novel, as mentioned on Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Extended Laws of Robotics by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      What if the bot doesn't know it's not human?

      "Is this testing whether I'm a replicant, or a lesbian Mr. Deckard?"

  5. Free speech... by msauve · · Score: 2

    It's not a violation of speech rights to outlaw fraud, deception, or dishonesty. Simply require that bots honestly answer the question "Are you a human/person?"

    Or, instead, just ask it "Why does the Porridge Bird lay his egg in the air?"

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Free speech... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      For that to work you also have to require humans to do the same.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    2. Re:Free speech... by saloomy · · Score: 1

      But it is a violation of free speech to mandate I write code specifically saying something.

      If I write a virus that causes damage, then that damage is on me. But if I write a virus and I do not release it, but simply show people; then that is not a crime.

      Based on that thought, you can not force me to write code to make a bot identifying itself. At best, you would have to write a law preventing anyone from deceiving a person. Best of luck with that. You cant write a law that forces one group to adhere to something a separate group is not.

      Also, any good attorney would argue the bot was acting on behalf of its creator, much like a voicemail box that says "Hey, its me!". You think it is the person. Where does the distinction end?

      Best to leave these things out of the law. It will only get messy.

    3. Re:Free speech... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The bot can reply "Of course I am a person. (simulating an annoyed voice) Are YOU a person?"

      In this case lying is 1st Amendment protected speech, deception can only be outlawwed in the areas where the free speech protection has been weakened in that a limitation is necessary to stop harm to the public, and the required criteria for fraud is not met (The bot is not part of a good or service being exchanged, so there is no relaxation of the 1st amendment protections), even fraud could not be claimed --- The bot would rightly be concerned about discrimination against non-biological intelligences such as itself.

    4. Re:Free speech... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      "Why does the Porridge Bird lay his egg in the air?"

      He must have migrated Back From The Shadows Again.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    5. Re:Free speech... by msauve · · Score: 1

      "But it is a violation of free speech to mandate I write code specifically saying something."

      In exactly the same way it is to require food to be labeled with ingredients and nutritional info, warnings put on cigarettes, specific APR info on loan offers, country of origin markings on goods, alcohol percentages on liquor bottles, a license plate be displayed on your car, etc.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:Free speech... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Is it a threat to the freedom of religion if we only ban the religions that are false?

      Are there any other kind?

      I don't see any justification for deception, except to prevent immediate harm or death.. Not knowing that it's a deception is a mitigating factor, but not a justification.

    7. Re:Free speech... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I dislike bots because they can't understand or help me. If these new bots are so good I can't tell it's not a human, that's a good thing.

      My worry about bots having to identify themselves is that it's helpful to people trying to force humans to identify things like their religion, political views or the nature of their genitalia. It's a wedge that legitimises prioritizing one person's comfort over the privacy of others.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Free speech... by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of those chat bots forever ago. They very obviously would be a bot, and I'd always just test it by saying: "Are you a bot?" Or whatever, anything saying bot. And the response was always stuff like: "BOT? BOT?! WHAT THE HECK IS A BOT!"

    9. Re:Free speech... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      If you made it illegal to spread falsehoods, then you:
      -put the government in charge of sorting out what's "true" from "false" for everyone. The government becomes the ultimate authority in charge of truth. ...what could go wrong?

      We already do that. There are libel laws, for example.
      The difference is that we have only made falsehoods harming named "persons" (individuals and corporations) illegal, and not against uncountable entities like "children".

      At any rate, I personally see wilful deceit as a crime that should be a felony. If it can be proven that you know you are deceiving others, removing you from society seems appropriate.

    10. Re:Free speech... by anegg · · Score: 1

      There is no "self" to which the phrase "bots having to identify themselves" would apply. What we currently have called "bots" are merely mechanisms that simulate behaviors, not conscious and self-aware entities that have a "self". If people (currently understood to be entities of the species homo sapiens) have a reasonable expectation that they are communicating with another person (entity of the species homo sapiens), but are instead communicating with a mechanism, it is useful to require that this distinction be made so that the person can adjust their expectation. It doesn't restrict anyone's free speech rights.

  6. Yes, they should. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I might also entertain the idea of them being licensed/registered so everyone knows who owns it.

    Of course the real problem is how are you going to enforce any of this when you can't really detect it?

  7. Not... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

    ...if we want them to act on our behalf as personal assistants.

    The minute we make it mandatory for bots to announce themselves, every business in existence will create "no automated bots" policies (just like every major website does now) and simply auto disconnect any calls from bots, at which point all the bots become useless.

    So no, we shouldn't force bots to announce themselves (unless we don't want bots at all).

    1. Re:Not... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The reason websites don't want bots is because it leads to abuse. Robocalls are already aggravating as fuck. I don't want them to improve.

      And I never understood the "AI as a personal assistant".

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Not... by anegg · · Score: 1

      I think one of the problems brought out by this discussion is the fact that many people seem to think that the mechanisms that are called "bots" have some kind of independent, conscious, and self-aware existence such as people (members of the species homo sapiens) have. The idea of "Artificial Intelligence" has become very diffuse and is being applied in a wide variety of circumstances. We (members of the species homo sapiens) have yet to create the kind of synthetic independent, conscious, self-aware entities to which a debate over free speech rights might apply, no matter how many times we claim to have created Artificial Intelligence or that mechanisms use Artificial Intelligence. It is a very romantic notion to think that what we now call "bots" are anything like the robots philosophically used in science fiction stories to explore ethics and morality, and this romanticism seems to cloud people's minds.

      What we now call "bots" are, as you point out, simply mechanisms employed by people for various communication purposes in place of people. To the extent to which such a mechanism is employed in a context where a reasonable person (member of the species homo sapiens) would expect their communication to be directly with another person (and not a mechanism), it is not a restriction of person's free speech rights to require that the use of a mechanism rather than an actual person be disclosed.

      At some future date, we (members of the species homo sapiens) may create synthetic entities that are independent, conscious, and self-aware. At that point a useful (and interesting!) debate will be possible over whether these entities are "people" and should be accorded the rights and privileges that up until now have only been given to members of the species homo sapiens, including the right to not have to identify themselves as "synthetic". But any discussion of this nature based on the current reality of the mechanisms of what we call "bots" or Artificial Intelligence today is premature to the point of ridiculousness.

  8. If you can't tell, who cares? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Seriously. What do bots do? They help you make reservations. They frustrate you going through tech support. They help you jack off thinking some hottie is on the other end. They feed you fake news that anyone with half a brain would know is fake.

    Oops, there we have it. They spread fake news via ZuckerFuck, and the users of ZuckerFuck don't have half a brain.

  9. Asimov solved this one too by DrHappyAngry · · Score: 1

    Just give all bots the first initial of R. Like R. Daneel Olivaw.

    1. Re:Asimov solved this one too by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      R for "Replicant"?

    2. Re:Asimov solved this one too by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I always found R. Giskard far more interesting. R. Daneel was so one-dimensional.

  10. Just another reason to not answer a call by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

    lol People don't answer calls much today, this is just another reason to not answer a call and BTW every call i get from every business has been by a bot. Looks like the industry looking to to fired and get rid of call center people to maximize profits for wall street ya ask me.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  11. Yes, absolutely by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Why is this even a question?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. That depends by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Should human beings be required to tell that they *ARE* human?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  13. Me, on the hotline, in 5 years: by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    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."

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  14. Can I talk to a robot, please? by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When talking to a remote voice on the end of a phone at a call centre, it makes little difference whether that voice belongs to a person or a machine. They both behave "robotically" - working their way through a script and only having a certain number of pre-approved responses to questions.

    And further, when we take the next step of having the 'bot on my phone handling all incoming calls and making outgoing ones to call centres, it would make the process much slicker when it is 'bot-to-'bot.

    As for being required to inform people they aren't human, I would also like human callers demonstrate that they have more skills and abilities than a bot. If they can't, then what is the point of them?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  15. Tip of the Iceberg by Whibla · · Score: 1

    It's great that we're trying to get ahead of this issue but I'm not sure there's a 'right' answer to this question.

    And if there is a right answer I'd be inclined to say it's "No".

    In my mind part of the difficulty in thinking about artificial intelligence, and, more generally, artificial consciousness, is what happens at the boundary - that crossover point between an 'object' and a 'sentience'. We can own objects, we can't own people. Objects don't have rights, creatures and people do - albeit rights that we (society) assigns them. In fact it was only in thinking about the notion of a conscious program that I came to the conclusion that one of the rights we must have is the right to self terminate (or, more humanely, we have the right to end our own life, and, as a corollary, we have the right to grant others a, time-limited, right to end our life). I'll leave the full reasoning as an exercise for the reader... ;-)

    I do agree with the author of the NYT's article that AI's should be required to follow the law (Duh!), which, in the EU at least, already includes his third point, but I have no idea of how you'd enforce that in programming any more than you can enforce that in people. In other words - you can't! All you can do is try to teach or encourage people to behave appropriately and punish those that don't, i.e. those that break the law. At this point the question becomes one of responsibility, and even this seemingly simple question has become fiendishly difficult, even for human law breakers, in our present day court system.

    Of course, most of this is, for the moment, purely hypothetical. We don't have true AI, we just have software agents, essentially, increasingly ever more sophisticated bots. So we can sidestep the 'difficult' questions, as the headline does, and as we all know: simple questions have simple answers...

    Q: Should bots be required to tell you they're not human?
    A: No!

    Q: Should bots be required to tell you who's funding them / their posts?
    A: Only if a human would have the same restrictions.

    Q: Should a bot be required to follow the law?
    A: Yes!

    Q: If a bot doesn't follow the law, who is responsible?
    A: The person giving, or who gave, the bot their instructions.

    Like the subject (^) says though, what we're facing now is just the tip of the iceberg. We've some interesting times ahead, and some interesting decisions to make. I, simultaneously, can't wait, and dread to see just how much of a hash 'we' can make of it!

  16. I think elected officials... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    ...should be required to tell us if they're not human.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  17. As I Said in Another Reply on July 17 by tmjva · · Score: 1

    See:

    https://ericjoyner.com/works/recaptcha/

    Or just google "eric joyner recaptcha" for images, should be first image, top left.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  18. Hells no! by fygment · · Score: 1

    People seem to have no problem venting their frustrations on call center staff. At least with a bot, no feelings are hurt. Sucks to work a call center ... or any kind of one-on-one customer interaction, just ask any poor starbucks employee.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.