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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS