Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

Generative AI: From an Existential Threat to a Manageable Challenge Over the last ten years

AI has transformed the way people interact with content from the likes of ChatGPT through Midjourney. What these tools herald, with each new acquisition of efficiency and creative potential, are grave ethical concern violations that immediately cry out for critical examination. Is this technology an existential threat to our very social fabric? It depends upon how we consider that we are called to answer demands for regulation and oversight.

Core Concern: Trust and Misinformation

Generative AI is just a “stochastic parrot,” as James Bridle describes such models in his book named The Stupidity of AI. They learn to babble based on the pattern in the data they were trained on; they don’t understand its meaning. That limitation can have quite profound consequences.

But of these, the biggest is probably misinformation. As was made clear in the “GPT-4 Is Here” episode of the Hard Fork podcast, this function of GPT-4 really blurs lines of what is real and fabricated, and often the public can’t anymore tell. That backbone of modern society-public trust-becomes dangerous.

A study from MIT shows that, as compared to the truth, lies travel much faster, reaching more people. Now, add to that the power of generative AI in creating fake news that would sound real and convincing, and you easily have disinformation disrupting public discourse. When trust disintegrates, skepticism and polarization rise, leading to social weakness.

Calls for Regulation and Oversight

Bridle concludes that all these risks can be mitigated only by bringing more transparency and accountability into the processes of AI development. The hosts, Kevin Roose and Casey Newton, say policies putting accuracy over engagement can’t wait anymore. That could include regulatory actions which would force the labeling of AI-generated content, disclosures about the sources of data, and assurances that AI systems serve the public interest and safety.

It does indeed needs a balancing touch, though. The policy can’t be overreaching or unduly restrictive; this serves only to bottleneck progress in innovation and reduce the much-vaunted benefits generative AI may bring to areas such as education, healthcare, and the creative industries. The aim is to reach adaptive guidelines that foster responsible development, not hamper momentum.

Balanced Approach

While indeed generative AI comes loaded with a few perils, serious oversight diminishes these. A better prelude would be for policymakers, developers, and users to actually construct a scaffolding that protects public trust while moving innovation ahead. First steps toward that goal are clear labeling of AI content, transparency in development practices, and public education that understands or identifies AI outputs. Conclusion It does not have to be an existential threat in and of itself, but left unsupervised, it will undermine and destabilize the very fabric of trust holding societies together. The development of policy and rules will necessarily have to move rapidly in order to ensure a situation whereby those technologies serve society responsibly.

explore more on this topic: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/16/the-stupidity-of-ai-artificial-intelligence-dall-e-chatgpt

Posted on

Dark Patterns: Why We Must Refuse These Deceitful Design Tricks

Sally Woellner reveals the world of dark patterns in her revealing TEDxSydney presentation-those manipulative strategies in design which fool users into decisions beneficial for businesses yet detrimental to consumers. These subtle yet powerful strategies employed by a great deal of companies are meant to confuse and therefore take advantage of the user to sustain unwanted subscriptions or even subscriptions that share unwanted data.

Why Dark Patterns Are Harmful
Dark patterns are not only annoying, but also unethical. They take advantage of human psychology in order to lead users through specific actions that are not good for them. In Google Workspace’s free trial sign-up, it pushes users toward expensive business plans while burying cheaper options several clicks deep and hard to find. Such manipulative usages play on assumptions that services will always present clear honest choices.

According to Woellner, dark patterns violate informed consent: people often don’t even recognize that they’re agreeing to something that will cost them more time, money, or data. This is particularly destructive to trust because, in today’s digital landscape, users trust that online services are designed to make their lives easier, not more confusing.
Dark patterns kick in with how the human brain works by exploiting either cognitive biases in decision-making or a fear of loss. Another very famous example concerns the so-called “Roach Motel,” a sort of dark pattern where it is really easy to get signed up for something while cancellation of services is purposefully devised to be made particularly difficult. Users get subtly coaxed into keeping subscriptions no longer desired since processes for cancellations are hidden or confusing.

This is a willful exploitation, building frustration long-term and eroding trust. It wasn’t by accident; this is an engineering strategy of businesses to jack up their revenues by leveraging users’ vulnerabilities-arguably one of the most poignant points of the Woellner TED Talk.

Dark patterns exist in that gray area of legality and this has been subjected to little intervention by any existing regulations. Slowly, growing awareness has turned into demands for more strict rules and greater accountability. While the General Data Protection Regulation is leading the charge in Europe with enforcement of transparent consent for the collection of data, dark patterns remain a problem throughout the world.

What is needed is the advocacy of design principles, which are derived from ethics, putting user trust and transparency foremost. That is where regulation should step in: it is time to make it impossible for businesses to take users for a ride behind the mask of creative design. Ethical guidelines are not going to hamper innovation; rather, they can introduce a much healthier and fairer, transparent digital atmosphere.

It is a rejection of using dark patterns, from businesses to consumers, in design. Designing has to be for transparency and not for the art of hoodwinking. As was pointed out by Sally Woellner in TEDx, ethical design is not only good for the user but also for business in the long run. Once lost, trust is hard to get back. By insisting on responsibility, instead of businesses churning for a quick profit, we can have a responsible and ethical digital world serving all of us.

If you’re interested in learning more about dark patterns and just how they screw users, have a gander at the Deceptive Design Hall of Shame for some damning real-world examples.