I'm more bothered (maybe not just perplexed) by humans pretending to be humans they are not, than robots pretending to be human, and yet see no reason to demand that humans prove they have e.g. read Spinoza, before answering a question on Spinoza.

There's a difference between manipulation and anonymity in general (these bots are representing someone). What matters - IMHO - is less that we know which interactions are human than openness about why some of our interactions are not human. I probably have read Popper on the open society, but it's not limited to right wing capitalists (there was an 'Open Marxism' even).

Karl Popper defined the open society as one "in which an individual is confronted with personal decisions"

An attitude to institutions whereby we rationally decide their consequences for ourselves and our persons: presumably - though thi is the key point I'm making - it's impossible if we don't know what other parts of society do (closed societies are tribal or seamless biological like entities).

"Investor and philanthropist George Soros, a self-described follower of Karl Popper" claimed

"Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception."

It doesn't take a genius to notice that large scale deceptions are more likely in a closed society, and presumably if we care about the truth we want to know why we are or have been tricked (wellness aside).

I'm more bothered (maybe not just perplexed) by humans pretending to be humans they are not, than robots pretending to be human, and yet see no reason to demand that humans prove they have e.g. read Spinoza, before answering a question on Spinoza.

There's a difference between manipulation and anonymity in general (these bots are representing someone). What matters - IMHO - is less that we know which interactions are human than openness about why some of our interactions are not human. I probably have read Popper on the open society, but it's not limited to right wing capitalists (there was an 'Open Marxism' even).

Karl Popper defined the open society as one "in which an individual is confronted with personal decisions"

An attitude to institutions whereby we rationally decide their consequences for ourselves and our persons: presumably - though this is the key point I'm making - it's impossible if we don't know what other parts of society do (closed societies are tribal or seamless biological like entities).

Anyway, how can we struggle with and judge other individuals, and their ideas, in a society in which we don't know how they act or their moral attitudes?

Investor and philanthropist George Soros, a self-described follower of Karl Popper" [claimed]... "Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception."

It doesn't take a genius to notice that large scale deceptions are more likely in a closed society, and presumably if we care about the truth we want to know why we are or have been tricked (wellness aside).

There are two options:

1. allow robots to pretend to be human
2. prove humans aren't robots

Or did I misunderstand?

I'm more bothered (maybe not just perplexed) by humans pretending to be humans they are not, than robots pretending to be human, and yet see no reason to demand that humans prove they have e.g. read Spinoza, before answering a question on Spinoza.

There's a difference between manipulation and anonymity in general (these bots are representing someone). What matters - IMHO - is less that we know which interactions are human than openness about why some of our interactions are not human. I probably have read Popper on the open society, but it's not limited to right wing capitalists (there was an 'Open Marxism' even).

Karl Popper defined the open society as one "in which an individual is confronted with personal decisions"

"Investor and philanthropist George Soros, a self-described follower of Karl Popper" claimed

"Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception."

It doesn't take a genius to notice that large scale deceptions are more likely in a closed society, and presumably if we care about the truth we want to know why we are or have been tricked (wellness aside)

I don't know much about Plato.

I'm more bothered (maybe not just perplexed) by humans pretending to be humans they are not, than robots pretending to be human, and yet see no reason to demand that humans prove they have e.g. read Spinoza, before answering a question on Spinoza.

There's a difference between manipulation and anonymity in general (these bots are representing someone). What matters - IMHO - is less that we know which interactions are human than openness about why some of our interactions are not human. I probably have read Popper on the open society, but it's not limited to right wing capitalists (there was an 'Open Marxism' even).

Karl Popper defined the open society as one "in which an individual is confronted with personal decisions"

An attitude to institutions whereby we rationally decide their consequences for ourselves and our persons: presumably - though thi is the key point I'm making - it's impossible if we don't know what other parts of society do (closed societies are tribal or seamless biological like entities).

"Investor and philanthropist George Soros, a self-described follower of Karl Popper" claimed

"Politicians will respect, rather than manipulate, reality only if the public cares about the truth and punishes politicians when it catches them in deliberate deception."

It doesn't take a genius to notice that large scale deceptions are more likely in a closed society, and presumably if we care about the truth we want to know why we are or have been tricked (wellness aside).