Re: [EXT] personal AI (was: Meronymity)

Couldn't we treat AI like an agent representing an individual or client
(like a real estate agent or attorney)?  If so, then I think there are a
lot of existing social norms in regards to how we treat and interact with
agents.

Thanks,

*Harrison Tang*
CEO
 LinkedIn  <https://www.linkedin.com/company/spokeo/> •   Instagram
<https://www.instagram.com/spokeo/> •   Youtube <https://bit.ly/2oh8YPv>


On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 8:22 AM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
wrote:

> Two people have every right to interact without impersonation. That can be
> enforced through mutual trust and social norms. I think Daniel's point
> falls mostly in this category.
>
> The issue being raised by Golda and Drummond seems more directed to
> strangers where trust itself is impersonal and institutionally mediated. In
> those cases, I see no role for Proof of Humanity. I don't want any
> corporation to insist on my live attention as long as I'm accountable for
> the outcome. That's a violation of my right to free association and whether
> I delegate to my spouse or my bot is none of their concern as long as I
> remain legally accountable in either case. How to hold me legally
> accountable is a separate issue that has everything to do with biometrics.
>
> As for my conversations with human or AI delegates of the corporation,
> that's just a matter of branding.
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:44 AM Drummond Reed <
> Drummond.Reed@gendigital.com> wrote:
>
>> “I believe human beings have the right to know whether they are
>> interacting with other human beings directly, or merely with a piece of
>> technology that's doing another human's bidding and can pass the Turing
>> test.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Well put, Daniel. That’s the essence of what I was trying to say earlier.
>> I think this “right to know” becomes even more important when humans are
>> dealing with AI that is acting on behalf of an organization. Firstly,
>> because I believe that will be the most common case (we are frequently
>> dealing with AI customer service chatbots representing organizations today
>> and it drives me nuts when I can’t figure out when I’m talking to the AI
>> and when I’m actually dealing with a human). Secondly, because knowing
>> whose interest an AI represents—is it a person or an organization?—is
>> crucial to addressing the rest of the concerns Daniel raises.
>>
>>
>>
>> =Drummond
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Monday, April 29, 2024 at 2:21 AM
>> *To: *Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
>> *Cc: *Drummond Reed <Drummond.Reed@gendigital.com>, Manu Sporny <
>> msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials CG (Public List) <
>> public-credentials@w3.org>, Golda Velez <gvelez17@gmail.com>
>> *Subject: *[EXT] personal AI (was: Meronymity)
>>
>> I feel like we are not yet pondering deeply enough how an AI alters the
>> social texture of an interaction. What is an AI's social and emotional
>> intelligence, not just its ability to get work done -- and what is the
>> social and emotional intelligence of us ordinary humans, vis-a-vis these
>> tools?
>>
>>
>>
>> Per se, an AI has no human rights and triggers no social obligations on
>> the part of those who interact with it. If I hang up the phone on an AI, or
>> never respond to their messages, I don't believe I am being rude. And an AI
>> has no right to privacy, no right to a fair trial, cannot be the victim of
>> doxxing, etc.
>>
>> However, associating an AI strongly with a human that it represents
>> introduces a social quandry that has never existed before, which is how to
>> impute rights to the AI because of its association with a human. True, the
>> AI has no standing in the social contract that would lead one to respond to
>> its messages -- but if that AI represents a real human being, it is in fact
>> the human being we are ignoring, not just the AI that does the human's
>> bidding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is lying to an AI that does Alice's bidding ethically the same as lying
>> to Alice herself? Would it depend on the degree and intent of the AI's
>> empowerment? What if Alice terminates her relationship with the AI -- does
>> the grievance stay with Alice or with the AI?
>>
>> If I am a therapist who happens to have a really fabulous AI that can
>> conduct remote therapy sessions over chat, is it ethical for me to go on
>> vacation and leave my AI to counsel people about their deepest personal
>> sorrows and perplexities, without telling them -- even if they can't tell
>> the difference?
>>
>>
>> I believe human beings have the right to know whether they are
>> interacting with other human beings directly, or merely with a piece of
>> technology that's doing another human's bidding and can pass the Turing
>> test. This allows interpersonal and social judgments that are crucial to
>> how we get along with one another. I am excited about the good that AI can
>> do, and about the prospect of personal AIs, but I am categorically opposed
>> to hiding the difference between people and AIs. The difference is real,
>> and it matters profoundly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alan said:
>> > Do we ask for proof of humanity of other software running on behalf of
>> a person?  What if a personal AI carries out its task using an
>> application?  Isn't the human who determines what the software, AI or
>> otherwise, supposed to do the responsible party?
>>
>>
>>
>> Adrian said:
>> >The group could not think of a single reason to make a distinction
>> between me and an AI that I control as my delegate. To introduce such a
>> "CAPTCHA on steroids" is to limit technological enhancement to corporations
>> and "others". Will we treat personal technological enhancement the way we
>> treat doping in sports? Who would benefit from imposing such a restriction
>> on technological enhancement? How would we interpret the human right of
>> Freedom of Association and Assembly (Article 20) to exclude open source
>> communities creating open source personal AI that an individual can take
>> responsibility for? Certifying the vendor, provenance, and training data of
>> a personal AI seems like the last thing we would want to do. I hope what
>> Drummond is suggesting applies to AI that is not transparent and controlled
>> by an individual or a community of individuals in a transparent way. How do
>> we see a world where two kinds of AI, personal and "certified" interact?
>>
>>
>>
>> Drummond said:
>> > Manu has a good point. I have no problem interacting with an AI bot as
>> long as I can be sure it’s an AI bot—and ideally if I can check its vendor,
>> provenance, trained data sets, etc.
>>
>> Manu said:
>> > Another interesting aspect here is that "the bots" are, probably
>> within the next decade, going to legitimately exceed the level of
>> expertise of 99.9% of the population on most subjects that could be
>> discussed in an online forum. I, for one, welcome our new robot troll
>> overlords. :P
>>
>