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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS