[BeetleB]

If you can come up with a technical and legal approach that contains the misdeeds, but doesn't compromise the positive uses, I'm with you. I just don't see it happening. The most you can do is go after operators if it misbehaves.

I've been around since before the web. You know what made the Internet suck for me? Letting people act anonymously. Especially in forums. Pre-web, I was part of a local network of BBS's, and the best thing about it was anonymity was simply forbidden. Each BBS operator in the network verified the identity of the user. They had to post in their own names or be banned. We had moderators, but the lack of anonymity really ensured people behaved. Acting poorly didn't just affect your access to one BBS, but access to the whole network.

Bots spreading crap on the web? It's merely an increment over the problem of allowing anonymous users. You can't solve one while maintaining anonymity.

[almostdeadguy]

I don't care about the "positive" uses. Whatever convenience they grant is more than tarnished by skill and thought degeneration, lack of control and agency, etc. We've spent two decades learning about all the negative cognitive effects of social media, LLMs are speed running further brain damage. I know two people who've been treated for AI psychosis. Enough.

[BeetleB]

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the harm.

But I think drawing the line of banning AI bots is highly convenient. If you want to solve the problem, disallow anonymity.

Of course, there are (very few) positive use cases for online anonymity, but to quote you: "I don't care about the positive uses." The damage it did is significantly greater than the positives.

At least with LLMs (as a whole, not as bots), the positives likely outnumber the negatives significantly. That cannot be said about online anonymity.

[RIMR]

Okay, but what are you actually proposing? This genie isn't going back in the bottle.

[cheema33]

> I don't care about the "positive" uses.

You should have stopped there.