In the UK context only. We know our main political parties have some really smart staff or hire it in. How will they react to this prospect? Be it defensive or offensive. That guardian of the electoral process, the Electoral Commission - are they aware? I assume other public bodies that should be on guard are OFCOM and the Home Office, for two examples. Somehow I think not, even if they are aware of such manipulation abroad - not that the UK has never indulged!
The Electoral Commission has struggled in the past to adapt its methods and assumptions to recent changes in technology (eg social media ads). DCMS is my experience was pretty good - once an issue had been prioritised. On the offensive side, political parties are most likely to be experimenting with such capabilities. From what we see, it doesn't happen in the UK as often and is not as normalised as in south/east Europe and Africa.
AI is a huge money spinner for profit making companies, mostly owned outside of the UK. They should be accountable to the public. Can't we find a way to identify it, like a watermark in a digital photo?
Watermarking is one of the solutions raised when people discuss AI regulation. But who would police it and where would they get the resource and the powers to enforce it? When it comes to regulation, I think we should get beyond talking about "AI" because it's like talking about "regulating the use of computers". Instead, we should think about how to adapt measures to police existing rules that can now be more easily circumvented via AI.
Thanks for the response, useful as I'm an interested but not very knowledgeable amateur. What I would really like to see is regulation to make the owners of the AI system liable for the resulting harm. The US Communications Decency Act allows for a "get out of jail free card", for providers to sidestep responsibility for content in a way that would have been inconceivable before the Internet. So for example Facebook had no one to moderate content when the Buddhist extemists caused the Rohinga genocide in Myanmar, they just banked the advertising profits
In the UK context only. We know our main political parties have some really smart staff or hire it in. How will they react to this prospect? Be it defensive or offensive. That guardian of the electoral process, the Electoral Commission - are they aware? I assume other public bodies that should be on guard are OFCOM and the Home Office, for two examples. Somehow I think not, even if they are aware of such manipulation abroad - not that the UK has never indulged!
The Electoral Commission has struggled in the past to adapt its methods and assumptions to recent changes in technology (eg social media ads). DCMS is my experience was pretty good - once an issue had been prioritised. On the offensive side, political parties are most likely to be experimenting with such capabilities. From what we see, it doesn't happen in the UK as often and is not as normalised as in south/east Europe and Africa.
AI is a huge money spinner for profit making companies, mostly owned outside of the UK. They should be accountable to the public. Can't we find a way to identify it, like a watermark in a digital photo?
Watermarking is one of the solutions raised when people discuss AI regulation. But who would police it and where would they get the resource and the powers to enforce it? When it comes to regulation, I think we should get beyond talking about "AI" because it's like talking about "regulating the use of computers". Instead, we should think about how to adapt measures to police existing rules that can now be more easily circumvented via AI.
Thanks for the response, useful as I'm an interested but not very knowledgeable amateur. What I would really like to see is regulation to make the owners of the AI system liable for the resulting harm. The US Communications Decency Act allows for a "get out of jail free card", for providers to sidestep responsibility for content in a way that would have been inconceivable before the Internet. So for example Facebook had no one to moderate content when the Buddhist extemists caused the Rohinga genocide in Myanmar, they just banked the advertising profits