3 ms·

AIs don’t manipulate people; people manipulate people. Every AI has a legal owner, author, and an agenda set by their human creators. Or at least there is alwa

AIs don’t manipulate people; people manipulate people. Every AI has a legal owner, author, and an agenda set by their human creators. Or at least there is always somebody to blame. This is the basis for future legislation.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
This is also true for ransom-ware attacks. It's illegal, but still happens. It's not enough to have laws, there have to counter-measures to defend against them and ways to track down the people who deploy them.
- doodlebugging 4y ago
  In addition to the things you have noted, society will need to define a set of effective sanctions against those who deploy and manage these campaigns. The sanctions will need to be globally enforceable and strong enough to discourage even the wealthiest individual or group. There should be no opportunity for anyone to escape sanctions using money, influence, physical distance, jurisdictional advantage, etc. When they are discovered and proven to be involved there should be no place for them to hide and no assets safe from seizure. Anyone assisting them in attempting to escape sanctions should also be sanctioned accordingly.
  - RegnisGnaw 4y ago
    Globally enforceable? How exactly?
    - doodlebugging 4y ago
      Obviously the governments of the various nations would have to agree to enforce the sanctions such that there is no refuge available. Sounds unlikely (understatement of the day?). Basically, representatives from each nation would need to convene to establish a framework for cooperation and then that would need to be ratified in each nation and rigorously enforced. I think as the technology is used to manipulate people and others see the dangers in allowing this manipulation then the likelihood of reaching a global consensus improves to the point where it can become a reality. Getting everyone on the same page before the hazards are revealed will be difficult or impossible due to the cultural differences and the wide disparity in technical know-how from one country to another.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
There is way too much money to be made for AI manipulation to be straightjacketed with regulations.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Sadly, this is how it goes. The public, our safety, our lives are all on sale for the right price. When someone can stuff their pockets killing us, we die. Governments are paid to stay out of their way.
jasfi 4y ago
I think the point is that these AIs will be far more convincing than one-off messages.
somenameforme 4y ago
I'd consider who the biggest beneficiaries of these bots will be. This is a government propagandist dream come true. You will love this war. You will love this candidate. You will love this policy. You will fear/hate this candidate, you will fear/hate this country, you will fear/hate this party, you will fear/hate these people. I suspect looking for regulation in this domain is going to turn out similarly to looking to the government to solve the 2-party problem. You're asking the people who will benefit the most from a system, to change it. Beyond this most people don't seem to be considering what exactly this is bringing to the game. It's not speech itself, but scale. The chatbots may or may not be more compelling than an individual conman. But the big thing they bring to the table is that you can deploy a million of them. But this requires the backing 'identity infrastructure' to support it - unique IP addresses, phone numbers, etc.. Little scammers will have limited resources here, governments and other big players will have near infinite.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> Every AI has a legal owner, author, and an agenda set by their human creators It's not obvious to me that this is always true. I can easily imagine a crowd-sourced, distributed AI, with no owner and no identifiable author. I don't believe that "Sidney" is meant to be bonkers.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

This is also true for ransom-ware attacks. It's illegal, but still happens. It's not enough to have laws, there have to counter-measures to defend against them and ways to track down the people who deploy them.

doodlebugging 4y ago
In addition to the things you have noted, society will need to define a set of effective sanctions against those who deploy and manage these campaigns. The sanctions will need to be globally enforceable and strong enough to discourage even the wealthiest individual or group. There should be no opportunity for anyone to escape sanctions using money, influence, physical distance, jurisdictional advantage, etc. When they are discovered and proven to be involved there should be no place for them to hide and no assets safe from seizure. Anyone assisting them in attempting to escape sanctions should also be sanctioned accordingly.
- RegnisGnaw 4y ago
  Globally enforceable? How exactly?
  - doodlebugging 4y ago
    Obviously the governments of the various nations would have to agree to enforce the sanctions such that there is no refuge available. Sounds unlikely (understatement of the day?). Basically, representatives from each nation would need to convene to establish a framework for cooperation and then that would need to be ratified in each nation and rigorously enforced. I think as the technology is used to manipulate people and others see the dangers in allowing this manipulation then the likelihood of reaching a global consensus improves to the point where it can become a reality. Getting everyone on the same page before the hazards are revealed will be difficult or impossible due to the cultural differences and the wide disparity in technical know-how from one country to another.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

There is way too much money to be made for AI manipulation to be straightjacketed with regulations.

autoexec 4y ago
Sadly, this is how it goes. The public, our safety, our lives are all on sale for the right price. When someone can stuff their pockets killing us, we die. Governments are paid to stay out of their way.

jasfi 4y ago

I think the point is that these AIs will be far more convincing than one-off messages.

somenameforme 4y ago

I'd consider who the biggest beneficiaries of these bots will be. This is a government propagandist dream come true. You will love this war. You will love this candidate. You will love this policy. You will fear/hate this candidate, you will fear/hate this country, you will fear/hate this party, you will fear/hate these people. I suspect looking for regulation in this domain is going to turn out similarly to looking to the government to solve the 2-party problem. You're asking the people who will benefit the most from a system, to change it. Beyond this most people don't seem to be considering what exactly this is bringing to the game. It's not speech itself, but scale. The chatbots may or may not be more compelling than an individual conman. But the big thing they bring to the table is that you can deploy a million of them. But this requires the backing 'identity infrastructure' to support it - unique IP addresses, phone numbers, etc.. Little scammers will have limited resources here, governments and other big players will have near infinite.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> Every AI has a legal owner, author, and an agenda set by their human creators It's not obvious to me that this is always true. I can easily imagine a crowd-sourced, distributed AI, with no owner and no identifiable author. I don't believe that "Sidney" is meant to be bonkers.