Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fwip 106 days ago
Seems like a good bill, at least directionally. If it's a crime to provide advice of this nature without a license, then chat bots shouldn't be dispensing it either.
7 comments

Maybe you mean it's a crime to professionally provide advice of this nature without a license?

It is generally not a crime to casually provide advice of this nature without a license. For example, if my friend tells me, "My stomach hurts!", it is not a crime for me to say, "Just grin and bear it, it will be okay." If they subsequently die of appendicitis, I'm unlikely to have legal liability. It would be difficult to characterize what I said as medical diagnosis or treatment.

Similarly, I can tell my friend, "Don't bother paying your taxes, that is a waste of time." This is legal speech. (Of course, helping them evade taxes is another matter.)

What is illegal is to hold oneself out as a licensed doctor, lawyer or engineer, or to provide professional services without a license.

Of course, chatbots operate at scale and give the impression of being professionally qualified even though they don't make specific representations to that effect. You're directionally probably right and I agree with you, I just want to nitpick about what is and isn't criminal.

Yeah, exactly. ChatGPT et al provide "advice as a service," and charge up to hundreds of dollars a month for it. (And the free tier is just a loss-leader to make money).

If these companies intend to profit off of giving advice, it seems wise to restrict them in the same way we do individuals.

This is not directionally good because NY already has laws against unauthorized professional practice and deceptive conduct, and S7263 mainly replaces regulator-led enforcement with a vague, fee-shifting private cause of action that is likely to drive serial plaintiff litigation while chilling useful consumer guidance.
It’s not illegal to provide advice of this nature without a license. It’s illegal to charge for services where you are advertising expertise in these areas without a license. Chatbots are information tools, like search engines, they should not be held to this standard imho.
Just because you aren't charging money doesn't give you the ability to act as an attorney, doctor, or civil engineer.
A lot of people are paying money for chatbots with a hype train that says the chatbots are AGI.
You've got a license for looking up the law/engineering textbooks/your symptoms, pal?
Yes and since chatbots cannot be held accountable directly their owners must

And yes, corporations own their chatbots. They aren't independent life forms

Anyone who has dealt with lawyers and doctors will a lot will tell you how incomptent they can be.
Ah yes, protectionism for $400/hour lawyers gatekeeping knowledge to protect tenants and abuse victims. Incredible!