[doctorpangloss]

Should PUBG mobile players be told they are winning against bots?

Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead?

[spankalee]

> Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead?

Yes?

[II2II]

Is there much of a point in telling psychics that they must tell people they cannot really speak for the dead? Outside of a few outliers, e.g. those who admit that it is for entertainment or those who have psychological problems, those who practice it know it is a scam.

I'm not sure whether those selling AI are in the same boat. One the one hand, the technology does produce results. On the other hand, the product clearly isn't what people think of as intelligence.

[tbrownaw]

That really does sound like a useful rule.

/s

[johnnyanmac]

>Should PUBG mobile players be told they are winning against bots?

They don't already? Games tend to be one of the better platforms of informing of an AI opponent vs. a Human one.

>Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead

We have to prove they are robots first.

[bhaney]

Yes and yes

[doctorpangloss]

I'm mocking the idea of a consistent answer. Of course you can be consistent, but you'll wind up with a bunch of rules that are stupid.

Do we make it illegal to pretend Santa is a real person? Do you see? It's exactly the same thing.

But I don't think that's a good idea, about Santa. OChatbots disclosing they're bots makes sense, but not because it's logical or whatever. And I'm not even sure if it makes sense to do in the context of entertainment, where suspending disbelief is common.