Followup of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130743

We need to normalize behaviors that are commonly attributed to paranoia.

It is ok to ask a lot of questions, it is ok to be skeptic of friendly interactions, it is ok to be suspicious. These behaviors are not social anxiety, not psychosis, not anti-social. They are, in fact, desirable human aspects that contribute to the larger group.

There is no automated detection, no magic way of keeping these new threats away. They work by exploring humans in vulnerable states. We need kind humans that are less vulnerable to those things.

I don't believe a purely technical solution exists. This needs to get political, ideally making it a crime to use technology in this way. The scope is much broader and more dangerous than niche forums. This shit has the potential to kill the ability of societies to discuss policy in a meaningful way.

> Unavailable Due to the UK Online Safety Act

https://archive.is/y9JyC

Money is an imperfect but real solution. The simple thing is to charge a small sign-up fee. Obviously this dramatically increases the barrier to entry for real humans. But it should cut the spam even more sharply.

I'm not sure what the solution is here - some forums put people in a 'probationary' state for a while where they either can't post or have extra scrutiny. There's some spoiling of the commons going on here that I can't quite put my finger on.

Separately, why are companies using this? Surely this is counter productive to their marketing efforts? Or maybe am I wrong and any attention is good?

Why should "we" not legislate that any AI systems must identify themselves as such when asked? There could even be a specified way to ask this question so it can be recognised by simple NLP techniques and avoid the black box processing of the model itself. This could carry legal weight.

That way, humans could impersonate AIs, but AIs would be legally encouraged, shall we say, not to impersonate humans.

"It could never be enforced" or "but there will be bad actors who don't do this" are useful and valid discussions to have, but I think separate to the question of if this would be a worthwhile regulatory concept to explore.