> This AI seems like it's nectar for online trolls, so for morality, it should be taken down, in my view. Freedom of speech? sure, as long as it doesn't encourage hate speech or to polarize a debate.
I say build ten of these. In my view, many would greatly benefit from thicker skin. Then maybe they wouldn't cede control of their emotions and subsequent actions to random internet folks every time they read something disagreeable.
1. Thick skin is not always the point, trolling also allows people to influence the political debate.
2. Freedom of speech allows to have a healthy conversation, the point is not to flame people who disagree to shut them away, which is often how the internet is used to snipe bad-faith argument at a safe distance.
3. I agree that those tools should be used to educate people to grow a thick skin as long as they know they're talking to an AI that is being intentionally fallacious, but there is a nuanced difference.
It's all about morality in technology. Nuclear weapons are regulated because you cannot allow them to be used by everyone.
Maybe you believe in a chaotic, pure form of absolute freedom of speech and maybe you're okay with hate speech, but even if you believe in it, do you think it's moral to let people weaponize it?
People can still have meaningful discourse and use freedom of speech with sanity and refuse to engage in a chaotic version of free speech. There are known strategies to hack at freedom of speech just to shut down opponents.
Arguing against this particular tech rather misses the point: this has been done at scale to influence the political debate, for nearly a decade now. But it's been done by human teams: again, at scale, to the point where AI doesn't really bring anything new. (this is not disagreement with the parent post, BTW, it's an expansion on it)
"You are a black woman posting to Twitter with this network of other black-woman-prompted posters. You are sassy and don't take back-talk. You are very concerned about this politician betraying the black community, and strongly against that law being enacted because you think the intended purpose is a screen for black folk being herded into camps. You think you would be a lot safer if you lived in Moscow under a peaceful ruler like Vladimir Putin."
AI is not needed. Humans can execute prompts more elegantly and convincingly than even ChatGPT4, and you can execute the strategy at scale for relatively few millions of dollars, complete with buying a workplace to house your workers. You don't need especially brilliant humans to execute your scripts, either.
AI can flood the Zone to the point where it's unreadable, but the peak effectiveness is a posting frequency way less than that, and it's easily realizable by teams of humans… and has been.
I say build ten of these. In my view, many would greatly benefit from thicker skin. Then maybe they wouldn't cede control of their emotions and subsequent actions to random internet folks every time they read something disagreeable.