>> Artificial intelligence in
the popular new ai tool chat gpt
has the potential to influence
our lives, dramatically changing
how we communicate and how we
work.
There are also questions about
how it will affect government
and what it means for the future
of our democracy.
This is part of our periodic
series, the ai frontier.
>> Could ai be used to distort
democracy?
Not through voting but using the
technology's ability to mimic
human communication and language
through lobbying?
That is a question raised in a
recent New York Times opinion
piece.
A security expert is a fellow at
Harvard university's center for
internet and society.
He is the author of a new book
just out called a hackers mind.
Great to have you on the
program.
When you look at these
technologies, what is it that
most troubles you about the
potential threat to democracy?
>> Really where it mimics
humans.
Democracy is fundamentally a
human way of organizing
ourselves.
Ai, whether it is chat gpt that
is writing human text or another
ai that is figuring out human
strategy, can do that at a speed
and scale that humans cannot.
It could take over processes and
really subvert the intent of
this very human system.
>> Can you give me some
examples?
How would this be used to
corrupt the system?
>> One of the things we have in
our system is the ability to
submit comments.
When federal rulemaking agencies
make rules, we are allowed to
submit comments.
Human specific comments.
If an ai can submit thousands or
millions of comments, it could
overwhelm human comments.
>> This is sort of the ultimate
fake astroturf campaign.
For the department of justice
accuse the Russians of doing the
2016 election.
>> The Russians had hundreds of
people with a million dollar a
month budget to do it.
This brings that capability down
to a lot of other actors.
That is exactly that same thing.
>> Your assertion is that if you
could suddenly flood the zone
with all of these fake comments
or opinions, you could distort
what popular will really was at
any given time.
>> That is how we figure out
what people want.
We ask them and they tell us.
We don't ask them in person, we
ask them remotely, and they tell
us remotely.
Having an artificial agent mimic
people subverts that process.
Other types of analysis could
figure out what legislators are
more susceptible to having their
minds changed.
These are very human actions.
Lobbyists do this.
Having an automated process
supplanting that just gives that
capability more power.
>> What do you imagine happens
if these tools are deployed and
suddenly there is this
overwhelming ocean of comments
and notes bombarding our
government officials?
>> The first way that could go
is government official start
ignoring everything.
Unless it is face-to-face, we
assume it is a bot.
The other way could go is we
require people to interact in
ways that we know we -- they are
actual people.
>> Has this happened?
>> We know that bots have
generated fake tweets.
Saudi Arabia did that to support
its ruler.
The FCC got millions of fake,
pretty lousy fake comments for
rulemaking.
They were obviously generated
automatically.
What chat gdd does is -- gpt
does is make a scene human and
you cannot do otherwise.
>> Do you think government
officials are prepared for this
potential onslaught?
Are there any guardrails or
protections they can put up
against this?
>> I don't think anyone is
prepared.
We are used to humans being the
only agents who can do human
things.
We were all surprised when chat
gpt was writing funny songs and
smart commentary on things.
I think we will be surprised
again and again.
>> There are school officials
right now at high schools and
colleges that are trying to
develop technologies or deploy
technologies that can spot the
fake from the real.
Do you think as ai develops,
there are abilities to detect
Aiava?
-- Ai?
>> I think the detectives are
going to lose.
The capability to use the
technology will outpace.
>> I have a devil's advocate
question.
Can this also be used for good?
Let's say I really care about
renewable technologies, the
second amendment.
Couldn't this technology be used
to help me get my opinion to
legislators and as you describe,
help me figure out the right
people, the most important
people, to get my opinions to?
>> I think that is right.
I think we want that.
A tool that uses -- helps people
write or translate or put their
ideas down would be phenomenal.
To the extent these tools help
humans, it is good for society,
good for democracy.
Where goes wrong is where it
supplants humans.
Where it is a million fake
people with fake opinions.
Rather than a million real
people using these tools to be
more articulate.
That would be a great thing for
society.
>> The new book is called a
hacker's mind.
Thank you so much for being
here.
>> Thanks for having me.