6/18/2023 0 Comments Undermine reviewWhereas advertisers strategically place a relatively small number of ads, language models such as ChatGPT can generate countless unique messages for you personally – and millions for others – over the course of a campaign. First, its language model would generate messages - texts, social media and email, perhaps including images and videos - tailored to you personally. It would offer three advances over the current state-of-the-art algorithmic behavior manipulation. Just as advertisers use your browsing and social media history to individually target commercial and political ads now, Clogger would pay attention to you – and hundreds of millions of other voters – individually. How Clogger would workĪs a political scientist and a legal scholar who study the intersection of technology and democracy, we believe that something like Clogger could use automation to dramatically increase the scale and potentially the effectiveness of behavior manipulation and microtargeting techniques that political campaigns have used since the early 2000s. While platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube use forms of AI to get users to spend more time on their sites, Clogger’s AI would have a different objective: to change people’s voting behavior. Clogger relentlessly pursues just one objective: to maximize the chances that its candidate – the campaign that buys the services of Clogger Inc. Here’s the scenario Altman might have envisioned/had in mind: Imagine that soon, political technologists develop a machine called Clogger – a political campaign in a black box. Altman replied that he was indeed concerned that some people might use language models to manipulate, persuade and engage in one-on-one interactions with voters. Senate hearing on artificial intelligence. Josh Hawley asked OpenAI CEO Sam Altman this question in a May 16, 2023, U.S. Ĭould organizations use artificial intelligence language models such as ChatGPT to induce voters to behave in specific ways? Finally, this Review describes the authors’ suggestions for reform and proposes that changes in this area of the law are best accomplished by the entities that created the problems-the courts.The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research. It has been modified by the writers for Scientific American and may be different from the original. It also explores the ironic result that the courts’ approaches to these cases actually may lead to more discrimination in the workplace and therefore more cases. In particular, this Review examines arguments regarding the role politics play in the courts’ decisionmaking in employment discrimination cases. Throughout this description, the Review supports and at times challenges some of the authors’ positions. This Review begins by describing the book’s main arguments. Instead, the book seeks to expose how these seemingly erroneous dismissals occur and suggest avenues for reforming these legal standards. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason for the courts’ frequent dismissal of these claims. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States-a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff-has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |