[huevosabio]

For political stuff you need a human to press send. So it's a semi automated system.

I've volunteered before, and at least in CA, you basically have a gui that prepolutes messages and guides you through each number one by one.

Its really weird

[alwa]

Interesting! Does the same interface expose you to people’s responses, if any? That is, if I receive one of your campaign texts, am I indeed “texting with a person” both directions? Or does that route to a call center somewhere?

I note in TFA that it:

> expands current law, which only mandates disclosure when bots aim to influence commercial transactions or voting behavior.

I wonder if your campaign does it that way because of a rule that applies to particular type of actors, or just because voters viscerally hate robo-whatever.

The best-intentioned of regulations…

[huevosabio]

Yes, basically you're initiating a lot of chat conversations. They help with pre generated responses here and there (at least if the campaign is savvy) but once you are talking it's mostly human to human. If you were to use LLMs though, you'll still need someone to press send.

[zoky]

Oh, good to know. I get so many of these political spam messages that my default response has gone from just ignoring them to sending nasty replies in the hopes of demoralizing the jerks who think it's okay to send me nineteen messages a day on behalf of a political party I don't even support (not that it would be any better if I DID support the party in question). It's good to know that there's a chance that I can make someone feel just a little bit bad for being part of the mechanism that enables this sort of intrusion on my sleep and solitude.

[johnnyanmac]

I thinik it's proper, albeit not entirely optimal. You can use wahtever tools to develop content. There needs to be some human making the final handoffs and decisions when it comes to the act of sending it out.

It's unoptimal because I bet those volunteering or otherwise aren't necesarily doing that QA, though.