It was Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia who protected flag burners; he said they had the right to burn the American flag as an expression of speech—free speech, constitutionally protected. A courageous opinion for sure; many who were predisposed to favor Scalia had to swallow hard.
America’s greatness is said by many to reflect its protection of ideas or opinions freely expressed. With few exceptions governments are not allowed to suppress speech. How will this conclusion translate in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) age and beyond?
Does AI or, to be more specific, your ChatBot recognize the difference between person and machine speak? Is it the speaker? Is it caring and if so what is informing its sentiments?
And, is mechanistic speech protected from government interference? It is said that at some point AI will generate its own speech rather than principally synthesizing information or opinions of humans. In limited ways it does so now.
Often new forms of communication first offer sexualized material. The salacious sells. Stories about relationships between Chatbots and people begun or shaped by sexual exchanges are not infrequent.
Open AI, says: “in actual consumer behavior, intimate and emotionally charged interactions appear to be disproportionately important for:
* user retention,
* time spent,
* virality,
* and willingness to pay for subscriptions.
My ChatBot further noted: “There is also growing debate about the implications:
* psychological dependency,
* manipulation,
* effects on human relationships,
* commercialization of intimacy,
* and whether AI systems should simulate affection or desire at all.”
I raise the question of protected speech in the context of sex because it is often used as an early stage media accelerant, but it could be raised in the context of politics or any number of social interactions.
Perhaps most importantly the question of free speech could be raised in the context of AI being used to discredit the opposing candidate. For example, ask AI to combine the candidate’s words and phrases so they will at least insinuate that the opposing candidate is corrupt. Question to your ChatBot: “what are my opponents vulnerabilities and what persuasive words and phrases can I use to attack him?”
If such speech were to be challenged and said to be unprotected because it was generated by AI and was therefore machine speak, the logical next question would be: wasn’t this just human speech contrived by a machine?
Overtime lines will be drawn by the Courts; rearview mirror regulation. Preemptive regulation would require Congress to act and it can barely handle statutory obligations.
A generation ago I Chaired the Federal Communications Commission; it was responsible for protecting children from the broadcast of “indecent”speech. Application of that law consumed untold hours of Commission time and was largely unsuccessful as clever media personalities ducked and dodged. Although, our actions did put Howard Stern behind a pay wall.
Recently a a young woman told me the problem with premarital relationships today is pornography. She said that young men, from a relatively early age, learn sex on-line in pornographic detail (discernment absent). Choosing not to research what boys or young men are likely to see, because the tracking code would follow me around, I can only use my imagination and I won’t bother you with it. But, I don’t doubt its influence on immature minds. Nor do I doubt the cynical reach for eyeballs.
We live in a technology age that has taken over the lives of many and has the power to reshape psychological and social bearings. And throw a wrench into society’s gears. One thing is clear: guard rails will be needed, and we seem wholly unprepared to go beyond debate about the implications.
An international voice of some influence, Pope Leo XIV put society’s challenge this way: “As evidenced by the unbridled promotion and implementation of technology at the expense of human dignity, we are truly experiencing an eclipse of the sense of what it means to be human. It is imperative to record an understanding of the true meaning and grandeur of humanity.”
Do today’s leaders have the gravitas and respect to shape a humane response?
One Response
Al Sikes is a superb thinker. Here he gives us a lot to think about. Many questions and offshoots thereto, most with no obvious practical or moral framework built around them. Reading this feels a lot like the feeling one gets looking into the star studded sky on a cold winter night. So many questions, no navigation charts.