Do you think engaging with an emerging tech tool can change your firmly held beliefs? Or sway you toward a decision you would not have otherwise made? Most of us humans think we are too smart for that, but mounting evidence suggests otherwise.
When it comes to a new crop of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology, the power of “persuasion” has been identified as a potentially catastrophic risk right alongside fears that models could gain autonomy or help build a nuclear weapon. Separately, lower-stakes designs meant to influence behavior are already ubiquitous in the products many of us use everyday, nudging us to endlessly scroll on social platforms, or open Snapchat or Duolingo to continue a “streak.”
However, recent advances in that nascent technology from China are raising fresh national security concerns. New research funded by the US Department of State and released by an Australian think tank found that Chinese tech companies are on the cusp of creating and deploying technologies with “unprecedented persuasive capabilities.”
Illustration: Yusha
From a security perspective, that could be abused by Beijing or other actors to sway political opinions or sow social unrest and division. In other words, it is a weapon to subdue enemies without any fighting, the war tactic heralded by the Chinese philosopher General Sun Zi (孫子).
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute report published last week identified China’s commercial sector as “already a global leader” in the development and adoption of products designed to change attitudes or behaviors by exploiting physiological or cognitive vulnerabilities. To accomplish that, the tools rely heavily on analyzing personal data they collect and then tailor interactions with users. The paper identified a handful of Chinese firms that it says are already using such technology — spanning generative AI, virtual reality and the more emerging neurotechnology sector — to support Beijing’s propaganda and military goals.
However, that is also very much a global issue. China’s private sector might be racing ahead to develop persuasive methods, but it is following playbooks developed by US’ big tech firms to better understand their users and keep them engaged. Addressing the Beijing risk would require us to properly unpack how we let tech products influence our lives. However, fresh national security risks, combined with how AI and other new innovations can quickly scale up these tools’ effectiveness, should be a wake-up call at a time when persuasion is already so entrenched into Silicon Valley product design.
Part of what makes addressing this issue so difficult is that it can be a double-edged sword. A science study published earlier this year found that chatting with AI models could convince conspiracy theorists to reduce their beliefs, even among those who said they were important to their identity. That highlighted the positive “persuasive powers” of large language models and their ability to engage with personalized dialogue, the researchers said.
How to prevent those powers from being employed by Beijing or other bad actors for nefarious campaigns would be an increasing challenge for policymakers that goes beyond cutting off access to advanced semiconductors.
Demanding far more transparency would be one way to start, by requiring tech companies to provide clear disclosures when content is tailored in a way that could influence behaviors. Expanding data protection laws or giving users clearer ways to opt-out of having their information collected would also limit the ability of those tools to individually target users.
Prioritizing digital literacy and education is also imperative to raise awareness about persuasive technologies, how algorithms and personalized content work, how to recognize tactics and how to avoid being potentially manipulated by these systems.
Ultimately, a lot more research is needed on how to protect people from the risks of persuasive technology and it would be wise for the companies behind these tools to lead the charge, as firms such as OpenAI and Anthropic have begun doing with AI. Policymakers should also demand firms share findings with regulators and relevant stakeholders to build a global understanding of how those techniques could be exploited by adversaries. That information could then be used to set clear standards or targeted regulation.
The risk of technology so sophisticated that it allowing Beijing to pull the strings to change what you believe or who you are might still seem like a far-off, sci-fi concern. However, the stakes are too high for global policymakers to respond only after that has been unleashed. Now is the time for a global reckoning on how much personal information and influence we give tech companies over our lives.
Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech. Previously she was a tech reporter at CNN and ABC News.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS