I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that
Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently down
I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
The differences are just implementation details (i.e. whether the transistors are carbon or silicon based).
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?
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.
It would be so embarrassing if your AI Girlfriend / Boyfriend turned out to be real.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/06/the-vast-sophis... https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-m...
It might work in more limited contexts, like commercial speech.
Your statement attempts to give an impression of a middle ground, but what it actually does is delegating the action to the human - who has limited energy and has to make hundreds of other decisions.
Your statement sounds like what a lobbyist might whisper to a regulator in an attempt to effectively neuter the bill.
People not versed in technology do not - and do not have to - know what an LLM is or what it can do.
These matters need be resolved at the source and we must not allow hopeful libertarian technologist DDoS the whole society.