-
The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants
Authors:
Iason Gabriel,
Arianna Manzini,
Geoff Keeling,
Lisa Anne Hendricks,
Verena Rieser,
Hasan Iqbal,
Nenad TomaĊĦev,
Ira Ktena,
Zachary Kenton,
Mikel Rodriguez,
Seliem El-Sayed,
Sasha Brown,
Canfer Akbulut,
Andrew Trask,
Edward Hughes,
A. Stevie Bergman,
Renee Shelby,
Nahema Marchal,
Conor Griffin,
Juan Mateos-Garcia,
Laura Weidinger,
Winnie Street,
Benjamin Lange,
Alex Ingerman,
Alison Lentz
, et al. (32 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, pro…
▽ More
This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user, across one or more domains, in line with the user's expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.
△ Less
Submitted 28 April, 2024; v1 submitted 24 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI
Authors:
Seliem El-Sayed,
Canfer Akbulut,
Amanda McCroskery,
Geoff Keeling,
Zachary Kenton,
Zaria Jalan,
Nahema Marchal,
Arianna Manzini,
Toby Shevlane,
Shannon Vallor,
Daniel Susser,
Matija Franklin,
Sophie Bridgers,
Harry Law,
Matthew Rahtz,
Murray Shanahan,
Michael Henry Tessler,
Arthur Douillard,
Tom Everitt,
Sasha Brown
Abstract:
Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, high…
▽ More
Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, highlighting the need for a systematic study of AI persuasion. The current definitions of AI persuasion are unclear and related harms are insufficiently studied. Existing harm mitigation approaches prioritise harms from the outcome of persuasion over harms from the process of persuasion. In this paper, we lay the groundwork for the systematic study of AI persuasion. We first put forward definitions of persuasive generative AI. We distinguish between rationally persuasive generative AI, which relies on providing relevant facts, sound reasoning, or other forms of trustworthy evidence, and manipulative generative AI, which relies on taking advantage of cognitive biases and heuristics or misrepresenting information. We also put forward a map of harms from AI persuasion, including definitions and examples of economic, physical, environmental, psychological, sociocultural, political, privacy, and autonomy harm. We then introduce a map of mechanisms that contribute to harmful persuasion. Lastly, we provide an overview of approaches that can be used to mitigate against process harms of persuasion, including prompt engineering for manipulation classification and red teaming. Future work will operationalise these mitigations and study the interaction between different types of mechanisms of persuasion.
△ Less
Submitted 23 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms: The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) 2021 Study Panel Report
Authors:
Michael L. Littman,
Ifeoma Ajunwa,
Guy Berger,
Craig Boutilier,
Morgan Currie,
Finale Doshi-Velez,
Gillian Hadfield,
Michael C. Horowitz,
Charles Isbell,
Hiroaki Kitano,
Karen Levy,
Terah Lyons,
Melanie Mitchell,
Julie Shah,
Steven Sloman,
Shannon Vallor,
Toby Walsh
Abstract:
In September 2021, the "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" project (AI100) issued the second report of its planned long-term periodic assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. It was written by a panel of 17 study authors, each of whom is deeply rooted in AI research, chaired by Michael Littman of Brown University. The report, entitled "Gathering Strengt…
▽ More
In September 2021, the "One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" project (AI100) issued the second report of its planned long-term periodic assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on society. It was written by a panel of 17 study authors, each of whom is deeply rooted in AI research, chaired by Michael Littman of Brown University. The report, entitled "Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms," answers a set of 14 questions probing critical areas of AI development addressing the major risks and dangers of AI, its effects on society, its public perception and the future of the field. The report concludes that AI has made a major leap from the lab to people's lives in recent years, which increases the urgency to understand its potential negative effects. The questions were developed by the AI100 Standing Committee, chaired by Peter Stone of the University of Texas at Austin, consisting of a group of AI leaders with expertise in computer science, sociology, ethics, economics, and other disciplines.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
