3 ms·

Why not simply ban any impersonation of humans? For what honest, economically useful reason could someone want to use AI without disclosing it? Proposed regulat

Why not simply ban any impersonation of humans? For what honest, economically useful reason could someone want to use AI without disclosing it? Proposed regulations: 1. Notify all users that what is displayed is output from a computer program (see #4 for terminology). 2. Notify all users on whose behalf the computer program is operating: There must be a human or organization (e.g., corporation) named, the business equivalent of the 'beneficial owner'. For example, 'You are using the Customer Helper computer program by Amazon'. 3. Going further: Ban any representation that the computer output is human: No human names, no anthropomorphism, no metaphors like 'says' or even 'intelligence'. 4. Terminology describing the system must include 'computer', and use computer-related terms such as 'output'. (This one needs more thought regarding terminology.) If that seems too far, why not? What are we hiding? And it would be inexpensive to implement. Also, consider that the biggest risk is manipulating people on an automated, mass scale, which depends significantly on the victims thinking they are interacting with a human. Especially in these early days, people are vulnerable - most people are not in the HN bubble and have no idea what they are dealing with. I also think it addresses a clear risk: The chat programs I've seen are clearly designed to appear human, to the point of polite chattiness, apologies, etc. Think about it on a practical level, it's a fun gimmick, a way to show off capability, but otherwise superfluous: how does it benefit anyone? It doesn't increase productivity. It appears designed to manipulate or fool people into thinking they are talking with humans, as does much else about the design and language around it. That indicates a serious problem in the direction of the industry.

kube-system 3y ago
> Why not simply ban any impersonation of humans? I think the simplest answer to this is that we have tons of existing anthropomorphic technologies that nobody actually believes is human. But nobody thinks a PBX system is an actual human. The problem with this contemporary issue is that LLMs have become believable.
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > But nobody thinks a PBX system is an actual human. My grandfather getting trapped by a robot span call thinking he's talking to the Bank Employee at the other end tells me otherwise.
vineyardmike 3y ago
I'm not sure I would go as far as to ban anthropomorphism, but basically everything else you said I agree with. We should just blanket ban computers impersonating people - this should include deepfakes and similar. The only exception is for cinematic productions, with actors who have pen-and-paper signed consents. As dumb and over-regulated as it sounds, it really isn't that crazy, and could have positive side-affects. It's one of those rules that really just enables us to trap bad behavior easier. It's like lying on a bank document, it's illegal because it helps law enforcement get a foothold into investigating more serious issues like laundering. Impersonating a person laws would really just helps us get a better grip to investigate phishing or other frauds, as well as address anti-consumer behavior. It would also help with false advertising issues - "a computer cannot make promises like selling you a car for $1, but a person can. If a computer pretends to be a person, its hallucinated promises are legally binding, and the owner is liable". Same benefit applies to spam and fraud calls - simply pretending to be a person is enough of a crime to get a warrant to investigate the actual fraud.

kube-system 3y ago

> Why not simply ban any impersonation of humans? I think the simplest answer to this is that we have tons of existing anthropomorphic technologies that nobody actually believes is human. But nobody thinks a PBX system is an actual human. The problem with this contemporary issue is that LLMs have become believable.

vineyardmike 3y ago
> But nobody thinks a PBX system is an actual human. My grandfather getting trapped by a robot span call thinking he's talking to the Bank Employee at the other end tells me otherwise.

vineyardmike 3y ago

I'm not sure I would go as far as to ban anthropomorphism, but basically everything else you said I agree with. We should just blanket ban computers impersonating people - this should include deepfakes and similar. The only exception is for cinematic productions, with actors who have pen-and-paper signed consents. As dumb and over-regulated as it sounds, it really isn't that crazy, and could have positive side-affects. It's one of those rules that really just enables us to trap bad behavior easier. It's like lying on a bank document, it's illegal because it helps law enforcement get a foothold into investigating more serious issues like laundering. Impersonating a person laws would really just helps us get a better grip to investigate phishing or other frauds, as well as address anti-consumer behavior. It would also help with false advertising issues - "a computer cannot make promises like selling you a car for $1, but a person can. If a computer pretends to be a person, its hallucinated promises are legally binding, and the owner is liable". Same benefit applies to spam and fraud calls - simply pretending to be a person is enough of a crime to get a warrant to investigate the actual fraud.