I think the threat isn’t just AI being used by governments to control citizens. Advertising companies want to influence behavior too, and their customers are mostly private corporations. They already have a lot of power and advertising is a $100+ Billion dollar industry for a reason.. it works.
If you haven’t seen it, I’d encourage you to watch Can’t Get You Out of My Head by Adam Curtis, which talks a lot about the increasing influence corporations have on the masses (by using technology): https://youtu.be/pga0Oi1cZvo
And of course, the next level of this is to tailor the articles you see, their content, and the response you get online specifically to you. Eventually, these systems will get progressively better and influencing your specific opinion. Social media giants can also affect things like which events you end up going to, the people you meet, who you end up in a relationship with, which jobs you apply to, etc. Soon it will be possible for corporations and governments to have sophisticated, subtle, relatively fine-grained influence over your life and that of your friends. You'd better hope Google and Facebook view your success and emotional well-being as good for their profits, otherwise, they could try to optimize your life for different outcomes.
I worked on bot detection at Google for a while. There are lots of ways to detect them that aren't based on analysing the quality of writing. We were able to get a very long way with a tiny team playing tricks with JavaScript and that was hardly the peak of what's achievable if there were to ever be a real "bot crisis".
At any rate, Brad Smith's argument in the linked news story isn't about bots writing messages to affect politics. He's concerned about the far more plausible problem of bots transcribing everything you say or do inside your own homes and then uploading it to the mothership for analysis. This is a far more plausible problem because "third parties spamming forums" puts well resourced tech firms in the defense position, but Smith's scenario puts them in the adversarial position. And it could happen today. Nothing stops Google pushing a software update that runs their voice recognition models 24/7 in the background and uploads transcripts of things people are saying to their datacenters for sentiment analysis, except maybe that a few geeks would notice battery drain, but no problem, if Google is doing it then most likely there are sympathisers to the cause at other local tech firms who will collaborate to cover it up. Previously even they would have been stopped by the cost, but advances in AI have driven the cost of speech recognition through the floor. It's entirely feasible now to consider recording, transcribing and filtering the entire world's conversations, all the time.
And that's a real problem. When I hear stories from former friends and colleagues who are still at Google I feel I hardly recognize what the company has become. If they're willing to erase people en-masse from their platform and fire workers for pointing out obviously true things (like "SARS-CoV-2 might have leaked from the nearby lab doing experiments on similar viruses" or "women are on average less interested in computers than men"), who knows if or when their employees might decide that e.g. listening in on popular conservative politicians in their own homes is justified? Certainly, Pichai cannot be trusted to reign in these kinds of behaviours if the past 5 years is anything to judge by, nor is there any obvious way to stop them from doing it given the root-like access Play Services has to people's phones.
[1] there are studies trying to spot correlations between political campaign spending vs voting outcomes by district and IIRC they conclude that it works up to a low level, but probably only by informing people there's a vote happening in the first place, and beyond that it hardly seems to matter. Trump beating Clinton despite a 1:2 spending ratio provides a large scale anecdotal example of this effect.
“Early in the Reticulum[Internet]—thousands of years ago—it became almost useless because it was cluttered with faulty, obsolete, or downright misleading information,” Sammann said.
“Crap, you once called it,” I reminded him.
“Yes—a technical term. So crap filtering became important. Businesses were built around it. Some of those businesses came up with a clever plan to make more money: they poisoned the well. They began to put crap on the Reticulum deliberately, forcing people to use their products to filter that crap back out. They created syndevs[Computers] whose sole purpose was to spew crap into the Reticulum. But it had to be good crap.”
“What is good crap?” Arsibalt asked in a politely incredulous tone.
“Well, bad crap would be an unformatted document consisting of random letters. Good crap would be a beautifully typeset, well-written document that contained a hundred correct, verifiable sentences and one that was subtly false. It’s a lot harder to generate good crap. At first they had to hire humans to churn it out. They mostly did it by taking legitimate documents and inserting errors—swapping one name for another, say. But it didn’t really take off until the military got interested.”
“As a tactic for planting misinformation in the enemy’s reticules[networks], you mean,” Osa said. “This I know about. You are referring to the Artificial Inanity programs of the mid–First Millennium A.R.”
“Exactly!” Sammann said. “Artificial Inanity systems of enormous sophistication and power were built for exactly the purpose Fraa Osa has mentioned. In no time at all, the praxis[technology] leaked to the commercial sector and spread to the Rampant Orphan Botnet Ecologies. Never mind. The point is that there was a sort of Dark Age on the Reticulum that lasted until my Ita [IT Department] forerunners were able to bring matters in hand.”
“So, are Artificial Inanity systems still active in the Rampant Orphan Botnet Ecologies?” asked Arsibalt, utterly fascinated.
“The ROBE evolved into something totally different early in the Second Millennium,” Sammann said dismissively. “What did it evolve into?” Jesry asked.
“No one is sure,” Sammann said. “We only get hints when it finds ways to physically instantiate itself, which, fortunately, does not happen that often. But we digress. The “functionality of Artificial Inanity still exists. You might say that those Ita who brought the Ret[Net] out of the Dark Age could only defeat it by co-opting it. So, to make a long story short, for every legitimate document floating around on the Reticulum, there are hundreds or thousands of bogus versions—bogons, as we call them.”
“The only way to preserve the integrity of the defenses is to subject them to unceasing assault,” Osa said, and any idiot could guess he was quoting some old Vale aphorism.
“Yes,” Sammann said, “and it works so well that, most of the time, the users of the Reticulum don’t know it’s there. Just as you are not aware of the millions of germs trying and failing to attack your body every moment of every day.”
—Neal Stephenson, Anathem
First, we have to define what "AI" is. In the current context, it might be Machine Learning or a collection of algorithms defining what to display to a give user, for example. Both ML and algorithms are completely neutral by themselves, it is their use that makes them "dangerous". You can use it for decades, e.g. collecting data from sensors and classifying them, an nothing bad happens.
But the moment a human being connects a software system to an actuator - news feed, an engine, a rocket, an x-ray machine - they explicitly take responsibility for the functioning of such a connected system. If it fails, putting the blame on "AI" is ridiculous.
Possibly related Noam Chimpsky paraphrased superaccuratequote - "Look at all the conflicts China is involved in, they're regional. They don't venture anywhere close to our territory. It's all posturing to coerce the obedience of their own population. Ultimately they represent no real threat and are being cast as a boogieman possibly to coerce our obedience. My name is Noam Chomsky. I teach at Arizona Community College now for some reason and Im probably a millionaire."
Seriously though the most Orwellian part of this whole thing might (might) be Big Tech Brother casting China as the perpetual Eurasian superenemy.
Or not? Idunno I wouldn't take a job in China.
The notion that China's conflicts are only regional is nonsense.
Like the assertions in your comment?