> JSR: [...] many people are both excited and scared by the potential [of ai]. People doing surveillance, [are] seeking ways to manipulate public opinion and pe

> JSR: [...] many people are both excited and scared by the potential [of ai]. People doing surveillance, [are] seeking ways to manipulate public opinion and perceptions [...] We need to be extremely vigilant toward [...] signs that big companies are doing business with players that are going to be putting these things to surveillance or information environment shaping purposes, and we need to be incredibly skeptical around promises that the technology can be somehow built or promulgated without those abuse risks in it. I'll add a couple of other ideas on top of regulation. Education [0]. In Britain we have the NCSC, who are a slightly less conflicted version of GCHQ/MI(n) charged ostensibly with what my colleagues term "civil cybersecurity" - their job is to actually protect real national security; of the citizens. We need more of that. We need governments weighing on with funding for digital self-defence. Investment in counter-surveillance. Another way to crack this problem is to actively fund anti-spyware. Making it better and cheaper than the predator's wares means the fight can take place in the market. Two problems with this are that it fuels an arms race, and that it requires true integrity of NCSC like organisations to actually defend citizens (including politicians and activists) against its domestic counterparts. That tension is not impossible to manage and aligns with a mature 'checks and balances' model. Given the history of the anti-virus industry I don't hold out much hope for the latter. The former is difficult because it means governments taking a positive ideological position on digital rights. But if Biden is already on that track, why not follow suit in Europe? What concerns me is that the motive is fear rather than care. [0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/election-disinfo https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/election-disinfo