Dave Farber
2018-05-23 10:45:40 UTC
Date: May 23, 2018 at 4:15:54 AM EDT
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Should AI Always Identify Itself? It's more complicated than you might think.
Should AI Always Identify Itself? Itâs more complicated than you might think.
By JAMIE WILLIAMS
May 22 2018
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/should-ai-always-identify-itself-its-more-complicated-you-might-think>
EFF Opposes California Bill to Require Bot Disclosures
The Google Duplex demos released two weeks agoâaudio recordings of the companyâs new AI system scheduling a hair appointment and the other of the system calling a restaurantâare at once unsettling and astounding. The system is designed to enable the Google personal assistant to make telephone calls and conduct natural conversations, and it works; itâs hard to tell who is the robot and who is the human. The demos have drawn both awe and criticism, including calls that the company is âethically lostâ for failing to disclose that the caller was actually a bot and for adding human filler sounds, like âumâ and âah,â that some see as deceptive.
In response to this criticism, Google issued a statement noting that these recordings were only demos, that it is designing the Duplex feature âwith disclosure built-in,â and that it is going âmake sure the system is appropriately identified." Weâre glad that Google plans to be build transparency into this technology. There are many cases, and this may be one of them, where it makes sense for AIs or bots to be labeled as such, so that people can appropriately calibrate their responses. But across-the-board legally mandated AI- or bot-labeling proposals, such as a bill currently under consideration in California, raise significant free speech concerns.
The California bill, B.O.T. Act of 2018 (S.B. 1001), would make it unlawful for any person to use a social bot to communicate or interact with natural persons online without disclosing that the bot is not a natural person. The billâwhich EFF opposes due to its over-breadthâis influenced by the Russian bots that plagued social media prior to the 2016 election and spambots used for fraud or commercial gain. But there are many other types of social bots, and this bill targets all of them. By targeting all bots instead of the specific type of bots driving the legislation, this bill would restrict and chill the use of bots for protected speech activities. EFF has urged the billâs sponsor to withdraw the proposal until this fundamental constitutional deficiency is addressed.
While across-the-board labeling mandates of this type may sound like an easy solution, it is important to remember that the speech generated by bots is often simply speech of natural persons processed through a computer program. Bots are used for all sorts of ordinary and protected speech activities, including poetry, political speech, and even satire, such as poking fun at people who cannot resist arguingâeven with bots. Disclosure mandates would restrict and chill the speech of artists whose projects may necessitate not disclosing that a bot is a bot.
Disclosure requirements could also be hard to effectuate in practice without effectively unmasking protected human speakers and thus reduce the ability of individuals to speak anonymously. Courts recognize that protecting anonymous speech, which has long-been recognized as âa shield from the tyranny of the majority,â is critical to a functioning democracy and subject laws that infringe on the right to anonymity in âcore political speechâ to close judicial scrutiny.
[snip]
Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp
-------------------------------------------Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Should AI Always Identify Itself? It's more complicated than you might think.
Should AI Always Identify Itself? Itâs more complicated than you might think.
By JAMIE WILLIAMS
May 22 2018
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/05/should-ai-always-identify-itself-its-more-complicated-you-might-think>
EFF Opposes California Bill to Require Bot Disclosures
The Google Duplex demos released two weeks agoâaudio recordings of the companyâs new AI system scheduling a hair appointment and the other of the system calling a restaurantâare at once unsettling and astounding. The system is designed to enable the Google personal assistant to make telephone calls and conduct natural conversations, and it works; itâs hard to tell who is the robot and who is the human. The demos have drawn both awe and criticism, including calls that the company is âethically lostâ for failing to disclose that the caller was actually a bot and for adding human filler sounds, like âumâ and âah,â that some see as deceptive.
In response to this criticism, Google issued a statement noting that these recordings were only demos, that it is designing the Duplex feature âwith disclosure built-in,â and that it is going âmake sure the system is appropriately identified." Weâre glad that Google plans to be build transparency into this technology. There are many cases, and this may be one of them, where it makes sense for AIs or bots to be labeled as such, so that people can appropriately calibrate their responses. But across-the-board legally mandated AI- or bot-labeling proposals, such as a bill currently under consideration in California, raise significant free speech concerns.
The California bill, B.O.T. Act of 2018 (S.B. 1001), would make it unlawful for any person to use a social bot to communicate or interact with natural persons online without disclosing that the bot is not a natural person. The billâwhich EFF opposes due to its over-breadthâis influenced by the Russian bots that plagued social media prior to the 2016 election and spambots used for fraud or commercial gain. But there are many other types of social bots, and this bill targets all of them. By targeting all bots instead of the specific type of bots driving the legislation, this bill would restrict and chill the use of bots for protected speech activities. EFF has urged the billâs sponsor to withdraw the proposal until this fundamental constitutional deficiency is addressed.
While across-the-board labeling mandates of this type may sound like an easy solution, it is important to remember that the speech generated by bots is often simply speech of natural persons processed through a computer program. Bots are used for all sorts of ordinary and protected speech activities, including poetry, political speech, and even satire, such as poking fun at people who cannot resist arguingâeven with bots. Disclosure mandates would restrict and chill the speech of artists whose projects may necessitate not disclosing that a bot is a bot.
Disclosure requirements could also be hard to effectuate in practice without effectively unmasking protected human speakers and thus reduce the ability of individuals to speak anonymously. Courts recognize that protecting anonymous speech, which has long-been recognized as âa shield from the tyranny of the majority,â is critical to a functioning democracy and subject laws that infringe on the right to anonymity in âcore political speechâ to close judicial scrutiny.
[snip]
Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=26461375
Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=26461375&id_secret=26461375-c2b8a462&post_id=20180523064548:7237D01C-5E76-11E8-8BEE-8FDFA76F9606
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com