Buongiorno, Daniela Tafani <daniela.taf...@unipi.it> writes:
[...] > <https://www.law.kuleuven.be/ai-summer-school/open-brief/open-letter-manipulative-ai> «Open Letter: We are not ready for manipulative AI – urgent need for action» --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] But one of the main risks associated with human-imitating AI was reflected in the recent chatbot-incited suicide in Belgium: the risk of manipulation. While this tragedy illustrates one of the most extreme consequences of this risk, emotional manipulation can also manifest itself in more subtle forms. As soon as people get the feeling that they interact with a subjective entity, they build a bond with this "interlocutor" – even unconsciously – that exposes them to this risk and can undermine their autonomy. This is hence not an isolated incident. Other users of text-generating AI also described ([1], n.d.r.) its manipulative effects. [...] It is, however, in our human nature to react emotionally to realistic interactions, even without wanting it. This also means that merely obliging companies to clearly indicate that “this is an AI system and not a human being” is not a sufficient solution. [...] The European Union is currently working on new legislation that will impose stronger rules on “high-risk” AI systems and stricter liability on their suppliers, the so-called AI Act. However, the original proposal does not classify chatbots and generative AI systems as “high risk”, and their providers must only inform users that it is a chatbot and not a human being. A prohibition on manipulation was included, but only insofar as the manipulation leads to 'physical or mental harm', which is by no means easy to prove. [...] In the meantime, we ask that all necessary measures be taken – through data protection law, consumer law, and if need be the imposition of targeted moratoria – to prevent the tragic case of our compatriot from repeating itself. Let this be a wake-up call to us all. The AI playtime is over: it's time to draw lessons and take responsibility. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- è ovvio che chiunque SPACCI un sistema del genere come "psicoterapeuta" o anche solo "telefono amico" andrebbe fermato subito e in casi come quello citato sopra di (presunta?) indizione al suicidio dovrebbe essere aperta un'inchiesta giudiziaria ed celebrato l'eventuale relativo processo... ...e vorrei _sottolineare_ che i SALAMI non arrivano nel "vuoto cosmico del diritto", come /autorevolmente/ (non autoritariamente) spiegato da Alvaro M. Bedoya [2]: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Let’s start with that first point. There is a powerful myth out there that “AI is unregulated.” You see it pop up in New York Times op-ed columns, in civil society advocacy, and in scholarship. It has a powerful intuitive appeal — it just sounds right. How could these mysterious new technologies be regulated under our dusty old laws? If you’ve heard this, or even said it, please take a step back and ask: Who does this idea help? It doesn’t help consumers, who feel increasingly helpless and lost. It doesn’t help most companies. It certainly doesn’t help privacy professionals like you, who now have to deal with investors and staff who think they’re operating in a law-free zone. I think that this idea that “AI is unregulated” helps that small subset of companies who are uninterested in compliance. And we’ve heard similar lines before. “We’re not a taxi company, we’re a tech company.” “We’re not a hotel company, we’re a tech company.” These statements were usually followed by claims that state or local regulations could not apply to said companies. [...] I worry that this debate may obscure the point. Because the law doesn’t turn on how a trained expert reacts to a technology – it turns on how regular people understand it. At the FTC, for example, when we evaluate whether a statement is deceptive, we ask what a reasonable person would think of it. When analyzing unfairness, we ask whether a reasonable person could avoid the harms in question. In tort law, we have the “eggshell” plaintiff doctrine: If your victim is particularly susceptible to an injury you caused, that is on you. The American Academy of Pediatrics has declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health. The Surgeon General says that we are going through an epidemic of loneliness. I urge companies to think twice before they deploy a product that is designed in a way that may lead people to feel they have a trusted relationship with it or think that it is a real person. I urge companies to think hard about how their technology will affect people’s mental health – particularly kids and teenagers. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Il discrimine _esiste_: il prodotto non deve essere progettato in modo tale da indurre le persone a credere di avere una relazione di _fiducia_ (col prodotto) Discrimine **fondamentale**: il "prodotto" che NON è il LLM, es. GPT4, ma è l'INTERFACCIA, es. ChatGPT; è l'interfaccia che /determina/ l'interazione uomo-macchina, spesso _mascherandola_, rendendola opaca... a volte _esattamente_ per ingannare l'utilizzatore, facendogli credere che è lui a controllare il software invece che il contrario Una interfaccia che faccia chiaramente comprendere a chi utilizza un servizio del genera che si tratta di /fiction/, una sorta di RPG interattivo (magari con tanto di /visualizzazione/ di un lancio di dadi per ottenere la risposta :-O), non sarebbe sufficiente a /disattivare/ il nesso di /fiducia/? Oppure, un avviso di "fictioning" **incluso in ogni messaggio** non sarebbe sufficiente a /disattivare/ il nesso di /fiducia/? Poi bisognerebbe anche interrogarsi sulla responsabilità genitoriale nel lasciare che i bimbi utilizzino certi prodotti senza alcuna supervisione... e comunque (anche) su questo il Garante per la protezione dei dati personali è intervenuto sulla base del GDPR Comunque concordo con la conclusione dell'articolo: educazione, ci vuole una /valanga/ di educazione informatica. [...] saluti, 380° P.S.: l'analisi del pericolo dell'utilizzo allegro dell'AI non si deve fermare all'utilizzo "diretto" da parte dell'"uomo qualunque" ma anche (soprattutto) da parte degli esperti di settore... /alienati/ (periti finanziari, medici, insegnanti...) [1] https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/15/23599072/microsoft-ai-bing-personality-conversations-spy-employees-webcams [2] grazie della segnalazione! (Msg-id:46c18e05fc1042be90f83bde3c241...@unipi.it); la relazione completa (grandiosa relazione, da incorniciare) è qui: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Early-Thoughts-on-Generative-AI-FINAL-WITH-IMAGES.pdf -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
