3 ms·
>It’s akin to requiring manufacturers to disclose whether a product is hand made or whether machines were used to reduce the need for humans to do repetitive ma
by johnnyanmac 2y ago
>It’s akin to requiring manufacturers to disclose whether a product is hand made or whether machines were used to reduce the need for humans to do repetitive manual labour.
Let's go off this lens... why is this bad?
>The bots that are used to help humans achieve nefarious goals will simply continue to pretend to be human.
Good. Now I can catch them, report them, and CA can fine them. Again, I don't see the downside. I like good, helpful bots. Them being bots don't make them less helpful (on the contrary. It's nice knowing they can be available 24/7).
- pishpash 2y agoBut the discrimination angle is interesting. What if a law required everyone to be "transparent" and respond truthfully to "are you [some race]"?
- thfuran 2y agoI don't really see the analogy, unless you're arguing that chatgpt deserves human rights.
- yellowapple 2y agoAt some point AIs will be smart enough that they might very well deserve human rights. That point's probably sooner than any of us expect.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoBut a bot isn't a human. It doesn't have any rights nor even indirect rights like animals do. It's a tool and I don't see anything wrong with tools being clear about what they are. And I especially do not like beokg tricked by a non-human pretending to be human.
- scarab92 2y agoDiscriminate just means differentiate. The parent comment isn't talking about race, they are talking about discriminating between human and human tool (bot).