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
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS