Re: AI catfishing [was Re: ChatGPT and ontologies]

When it comes to legislating AI, I still have not made my mind up as to
exactly what would such legislation look like,

I agree that labelling AI generated content/ would be feasible and highly
beneficial
I would also make the data sources mandatory (to some extent)
In the same way that sources need to be cited in scholarly papers
(artificial intelligence should follow the accepted human conventions )

Problem is

a) even human plagiarize sources and fabricate data and get away with it.
Even if on the face of it research publication ethics is promoted, the
reality is that the very same journals  that declare to adhere to research
ethics, in reality, blatantly plagiarized and nobody can do anything about
it
(because of flaws in scholarly publishing. because lawyers are  expensive
and because publishing houses are part of powerful cartels etc etc)

Can we demand/expect that AI adheres to better standards than humans?
b) there is an increasingly blurring of the boundaries between what is AI,
For example, how data is actually machine generated or processed in the
first place

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:49 PM David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> On 2/11/23 05:10, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> > On 10/02/2023 18:01, David Booth wrote:
> >> I personally think we need legislation against AI catfishing, i.e., AI
> >> *pretending* to be human.
> >>
> >>   - AI-generated content should be clearly labeled as such.
> >>
> >>   - Bots should be clearly labeled as such.
> >
> > A worthy aim though I'm skeptical any such legislation could be usefully
> > enforced.
>
> Certainly not 100%, but I think they could still help reduce the
> problem, particularly if they're targeted at the civil level, which has
> a much lower burden-of-proof threshold than the criminal level.  Laws
> regarding fraud, false advertising and accurate product labeling all
> come to mind as examples of laws that help, even if they're not 100%
> usefully enforced.
>
> Best wishes,
> David Booth
>
>