Skip Navigation

‘The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation I Have Ever Seen’ | The most persuasive “people” on a popular subreddit turned out to be a front for a secret AI experiment.

www.theatlantic.com

‘The Worst Internet-Research Ethics Violation I Have Ever Seen’

172 comments
  • [...] I read through dozens of the AI comments, and although they weren’t all brilliant, most of them seemed reasonable and genuine enough. They made a lot of good points, and I found myself nodding along more than once. As the Zurich researchers warn, without more robust detection tools, AI bots might “seamlessly blend into online communities”—that is, assuming they haven’t already.

  • The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments.

    This seems to be the kind of a situation where, if the researchers truly believe their study is necessary, they have to:

    • accept that negative publicity will result
    • accept that people may stop cooperating with them on this work
    • accept that their reputation will suffer as a result
    • ensure that they won't do anything illegal

    After that, if they still feel their study is necesary, maybe they should run it and publish the results.

    If then, some eager redditors start sending death threats, that's unfortunate. I would catalouge them, but not report them anywhere unless something actually happens.

    As for the question of whether a tailor-made response considering someone's background can sway opinions better - that's been obvious through ages of diplomacy. (If you approach an influential person with a weighty proposal, it has always been worthwhile to know their background, think of several ways of how they might perceive the proposal, and advance your explanation in a way that relates better with their viewpoint.)

    AI bots which take into consideration a person's background will - if implemented right - indeed be more powerful at swaying opinions.

    As to whether secrecy was really needed - the article points to other studies which apparently managed to prove the persuasive capability of AI bots without deception and secrecy. So maybe it wasn't needed after all.

172 comments