Fraud!
“Whiplash” might be the right word. Naïveté is certainly a part of the narrative. Maybe it’s time for the word “responsibility” to occupy the unfolding story of disaster.
But let me begin on the frivolous side of the ledger because my concern starts there. Several years ago I saw on Meta, whoops its Facebook business, a headline about a sports trade that, to use their expression, “would shock the sports world.” I bit.
In random conversation then and since, it is not unusual for somebody to bring up a narrative or video or image that is not real. It is a fake or a“deep fake”—a provocation and increasingly one that is derived from the tools of artificial intelligence (AI). It is not hard to conclude that AI is being used to delete intelligence, not enlarge it.
This, well what should we call it—lying, fraud, deception, well whatever, is altering lives while eroding humanity. And I am not talking about images of dogs doing unbelievable things.
Periodically these fakes of one sort or another are brought to us on the publishing platforms of businesses that are spending billions on succeeding generations of AI. Yet today, companies publishing on the Internet are legally entitled to post what a halfway inquisitive mind knows are fakes. This news is not new. We all know of scams that trap a number of people using emotional appeals. We all have biases and the fraudsters often tell us what we want to hear but is not within a mile of the truth.
Briefly let me take you back to 1996—well over twelve technology generations ago. In 1996, a law was passed called the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and Section 230 of the law largely relieved social media publishers from responsibility for what they publish. In essence it “ensures websites are not legally responsible for libel, defamation, or illegal content posted by their users.”
Today, as we think about cultural and political division and the underlying cultural volatility, the 1996 law has proved, at least indirectly, causative. It should be changed. Fake sport headlines are mischief. Fake “news” about disease or impending disasters or unethical conduct by public leaders can become lethal.
Back in 1996, lawmakers were presumably trying to avoid sidetracking the new technology through regulation. We should ask ourselves: what have we learned, how can we do it better, and then be prepared to fight the tech Goliaths who will spend untold millions to defeat any intrusions.
Social media, indeed, all information and news platforms, should be using AI as an editor or to help an editor. Posts should go through acceptable AI filters. And if they do, the platform companies should not be legally responsible for bogus stuff. Meta Platforms, X Corp., Google and others should be treated as publishers and held liable for harmful content. How about spending a few billion on integrity?
If you are still with me, ask your Chatbot: what have been the most harmful instances in which people have been misled by fake postings. I suspect the 2020 election claims about voter fraud will be in the list of answers. It fit well—conspiracy theories were rampant. They still are. And if you think about harm, what about the January 6th attack on the Capitol and its aftermath?
So-called social media has turned out to be a platform vulnerable to all sorts of fraud. The platforms are not just injurious to kids; adults are among the vulnerable.
While news reporting is not perfect, journalism with integrity is part of America’s greatness. Propaganda aided by self-serving censorship is an attack on civilization. We can now use AI as an aid, not just as a tool for fakery. And its productivity is heralded. Again, there are all sorts of good uses of smart platforms and if we clean up their toxic use we will enhance their value.
Warning: drawing lines is not easy work. When I chaired the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), not a week went by without our having to determine whether content in “broadcast entertainment” imperiled children. The FCC restricted broadcasting “indecent content” between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The overarching question: what was indecent? But just because it is difficult to both protect free speech and the “public interest” doesn’t mean that incendiary speech based on lies should not be prohibited.
l
One Response
Hi Al
Thanks for bringing this topic up. While many of us are skeptical of Alternative Intelligence (AI), it can be used for good purposes. A group of scientists at MIT have developed an AI platform to test conspiracy theories. It is called “debunkbot “. It is freely available to the public at debunkbot.com. Here, one can test various conspiracy theories and receive feedback from the AI platform. I recently asked it the question “Weren’t the people who attacked the capitol building on January 6 true patriots who were protecting the country?” I got some very interesting responses. And the site allows for follow-up questions. It allows for a very enlightening experience. I suggest that readers check it out.