What does it take to change a person’s mind? As generative artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more embedded in customer-facing systems — think of human-like phone calls or online chatbots — it is an ethical question that needs to be addressed widely.
The capacity to change minds through reasoned discourse is at the heart of democracy. Clear and effective communication forms the foundation of deliberation and persuasion, which are essential to resolve competing interests. However, there is a dark side to persuasion: false motives, lies and cognitive manipulation — malicious behavior that AI could facilitate.
In the not-so-distant future, generative AI could enable the creation of new user interfaces that could persuade on behalf of any person or entity with the means to establish such a system. Leveraging private knowledge bases, these specialized models would offer different truths that compete based on their ability to generate convincing responses for a target group — an AI for each ideology. A wave of AI-assisted social engineering would surely follow, with escalating competition making it easier and cheaper for bad actors to spread disinformation and perpetrate scams.
Illustration: Yusha
The emergence of generative AI has thus fueled a crisis of epistemic insecurity. The initial policy response has been to ensure that humans know that they are engaging with an AI. In June, the European Commission urged large tech companies to start labeling text, video and audio created or manipulated by AI tools, while the European Parliament is pushing for a similar rule in the forthcoming AI Act. This awareness, the argument goes, would prevent us from being misled by an artificial agent, no matter how convincing.
However, alerting people to the presence of AI would not necessarily safeguard them against manipulation. As far back as the 1960s, the ELIZA chatbot experiment at MIT demonstrated that people could form emotional connections with, have empathy for, and attribute human thought processes to a computer program with anthropomorphic characteristics — in this case, natural speech patterns — despite being told that it is a non-human entity.
We tend to develop a strong emotional attachment to our beliefs, which then hinders our ability to assess contradictory evidence objectively. Moreover, we often seek information that supports, rather than challenges, our views. Our goal should be to engage in reflective persuasion, whereby we present arguments and carefully consider our beliefs and values to reach well-founded agreements or disagreements.
However, crucially, forming emotional connections with others could increase our susceptibility to manipulation, and we know that humans could make these types of connections even with chatbots that are not designed to do so. When chatbots are built to connect emotionally with humans, this would create a new dynamic rooted in two longstanding problems of human discourse: asymmetrical risk and reciprocity.
Imagine that a tech company creates a persuasive chatbot. Such an agent would be taking essentially zero risk — either emotional or physical — in attempting to convince others. As for reciprocity, there is very little chance that the chatbot doing the persuading would have any capacity to be persuaded. It is more likely that an individual could get the chatbot to concede a point in the context of their limited interaction, which would then be internalized for training. This would make active persuasion — which is about inducing a change in belief, not reaching momentary agreement — largely infeasible.
In short, we are woefully unprepared for the dissemination of persuasive AI systems. Many industry leaders, including OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, have raised awareness about its potential threat. However, awareness does not translate into a comprehensive risk-management framework.
A society cannot be effectively inoculated against persuasive AI, as that would require making each person immune to such agents — an impossible task. Moreover, any attempt to control and label AI interfaces would result in individuals transferring inputs to new domains, not unlike copying text produced by ChatGPT and pasting it into an email. System owners would therefore be responsible for tracking user activity and evaluating conversions.
However, persuasive AI need not be generative in nature. A wide range of organizations, individuals and entities have already bolstered their persuasive capabilities to achieve their objectives. Consider state actors’ use of computational propaganda, which involves manipulating information and public opinion to further national interests and agendas.
Meanwhile, the evolution of computational persuasion has provided the advertising-technology industry with a lucrative business model. This burgeoning field not only demonstrates the power of persuasive technologies to shape consumer behavior, but also underscores the significant role they could play in driving sales and achieving commercial objectives.
What unites these diverse actors is a desire to enhance their persuasive capacities. This mirrors the ever-expanding landscape of technology-driven influence, with all its known and unknown social, political, and economic implications. As persuasion is automated, a comprehensive ethical and regulatory framework becomes imperative.
Mark Esposito is a professor at Hult International Business School and a co-author of The Great Remobilization: Strategies and Designs for a Smarter Global Future. Josh Entsminger is a PhD student in innovation and public policy at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. Terence Tse is a professor at Hult International Business School and a co-author of The Great Remobilization: Strategies and Designs for a Smarter Global Future.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s