It bothers me that they didn't consider that this should be bilateral: a bot must confirm that it is a bot, and a human must confirm it is a human.
I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.
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.
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.
The differences are just implementation details (i.e. whether the transistors are carbon or silicon based).