ChatGPT Hijacks Democracy (Sanders and Schneier)

nytimes.com

3 points·xpe··6 comments

"So while it’s impossible to predict what a future filled with A.I. lobbyists will look like, it will probably make the already influential and powerful even more so."

This article is also linked from Harvard's Berkman Klein Center [1]

> The Berkman Klein Center's mission is to explore and understand cyberspace; to study its development, dynamics, norms, and standards; and to assess the need or lack thereof for laws and sanctions.

> We are a research center, premised on the observation that what we seek to learn is not already recorded. Our method is to build out into cyberspace, record data as we go, self-study, and share. Our mode is entrepreneurial nonprofit.

[1] https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2023-01/how-chatgpt-hijacks-...

The Moral Authority of ChatGPT https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.07098

Interesting, related, and maybe different enough perhaps to warrant a separate HN discussion? The paper by Krügel, Ostermaier, Uhl focuses on the morality of what ChatGPT writes and people will be affected, based on a particular moral thought experiment. The article by Sanders and Schneier focuses on the downstream implications of using ChatGPT for lobbying -- both textual communications with representatives and strategic issue targeting.

Perhaps another ChatGPT variant could answer the question: Is this comment from a constituent (or contributor)? If not, ignore it.

https://archive.is/Cyaac

Previous HN submission, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34396790

Reply on news.ycombinator.com