{"id":233476,"date":"2021-04-22T23:32:53","date_gmt":"2021-04-22T20:32:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/en.buradabiliyorum.com\/study-shows-how-dangerously-simple-it-is-to-manipulate-voters-and-daters-with-ai\/"},"modified":"2021-04-22T23:32:53","modified_gmt":"2021-04-22T20:32:53","slug":"study-shows-how-dangerously-simple-it-is-to-manipulate-voters-and-daters-with-ai","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/buradabiliyorum.com\/en\/study-shows-how-dangerously-simple-it-is-to-manipulate-voters-and-daters-with-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"#Study shows how dangerously simple it is to manipulate voters (and daters) with AI"},"content":{"rendered":"

“#Study shows how dangerously simple it is to manipulate voters (and daters) with AI<\/strong>”
\n<\/p>\n

A pair of researchers, Uju\u00e9 Agudo and Helena Matute of Universidad de Deusto in Spain, recently published a fascinating study<\/a> demonstrating how easy it is to influence humans with algorithms.<\/p>\n

Up front:<\/strong> The basic takeaway from the work\u00a0is that people tend to do what the algorithm says. Whether they\u2019re being influenced to vote for a specific candidate based on an algorithmic recommendation or being funneled toward the perfect date on an app<\/a>, we\u2019re dangerously easy to influence with basic psychology and rudimentary AI.<\/p>\n

The big deal:<\/strong> We like to think we\u2019re agents of order making informed decisions in a somewhat chaotic universe. But, as Neural\u2019s Thomas Maucalay recently pointed out in our weekly newsletter<\/a>, we\u2019re unintentional cyborgs<\/i>.<\/p>\n

And that means we\u2019re susceptible to the same disadvantages as our hairy ancestors as well as those that have traditionally only affected machines. If you prick us, we bleed. And if an algorithm tells us something is true, we usually agree.<\/p>\n

An argument:<\/strong> We\u2019re no longer homo-sapiens \u2013 <\/i>which means \u201cwise man\u201d in Latin. We\u2019re more like <\/span>reverse-homomutatas.<\/i> That might sound like it would have something to do with \u201cmutant humans,\u201d but in fact it refers to a type of cloud.<\/span><\/p>\n

Homomutatas<\/a> are cloud-like formations caused by human interference in the natural atmosphere that have transcended their initial state to become\u2026 something more. It takes a combination of humanity\u2019s byproducts and nature\u2019s influence to create homomutatas.<\/span><\/p>\n

What humanity has become is the opposite. We once were the \u201cwise man\u201d of nature, now we\u2019re fully-augmented cybernetic beings who\u2019ve eschewed millions of years of natural evolution in exchange for the ability to externalize our cognitive functions. In other words: we let computers do the work our brains were evolved to handle so we can fill our time with more creative endeavors. Such as arguing over politics or deciding whether to swipe right or left. <\/span><\/p>\n

The research:<\/strong> Agudo and Matute, the aforementioned researchers, probably weren\u2019t trying to argue that humanity has evolved beyond the natural order when they conducted their study. But, after reading the research, it\u2019s hard to come to any other conclusion.<\/span><\/p>\n

Per the study:<\/span><\/p>\n

In four experiments, we found that persuasion was possible and that different styles of persuasion (e.g., explicit, covert) were more effective depending on the decision context (e.g., political and dating). We conclude that it is important to educate people against trusting and following the advice of algorithms blindly.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The researchers conducted four distinct experiments under similar conditions. Each began with a fake personality test. Once participants completed the test they were given a personality profile which they were told would inform the algorithm and help determine the best personalized results for them.<\/span><\/p>\n

In reality, there were no individual personality profiles. All participants were given the same fake profile, a vaguely worded one that could apply to anyone. <\/span><\/p>\n

In the first experiment, the researchers used explicit manipulation to get participants to vote for a specific political candidate. People were shown images of fictional politicians and told that specific candidates matched their personality to a high percentage and then asked, based on nothing more than the images of the politicians and the algorithmic recommendations, who they were most likely to vote for. <\/span><\/p>\n

When compared against a control group of people viewing images with no algorithmic manipulation, people were much more likely to vote for the candidate the AI told them to.<\/span><\/p>\n

[Read:\u00a03 new technologies ecommerce brands can use to connect better with customers]<\/em><\/p>\n

The second experiment used indirect manipulation. Rather than telling participants an AI was recommending politicians, the algorithm secretly chose four politicians and pre-exposed participants to their images in order to develop familiarity. <\/span><\/p>\n

Interestingly, people didn\u2019t seem to be influenced in any statistically meaningful way when the algorithm tried to use what magicians call a \u201cforce,\u201d that is, to hide the fact they\u2019re pushing a mark towards a specific outcome. <\/span><\/p>\n

In politics, it seems, people trust the algorithm to tell them what to do even more when they <\/span>know<\/i> they\u2019re being manipulated. <\/span><\/p>\n

But the results were a 180-degree departure when the same concepts and algorithms were applied to dating apps. <\/span><\/p>\n

When the algorithm told people they would be a match for certain individuals, participants were still just as likely to say they\u2019d rather date a different fictional match than the one the AI tried to force. <\/span><\/p>\n

However, when the AI stayed behind the scenes and surfaced specific images, users were more likely to choose those images. <\/span><\/p>\n

The bottom line:<\/strong> We\u2019re easily manipulated by algorithms. The question isn\u2019t whether a bad actor can manipulate us with AI, it\u2019s which algorithms work best for a given situation. <\/span><\/p>\n

What that means for humanity, in the post homo-sapiens sense, remains to be seen. We\u2019ve only been living with modern AI techniques for a matter of decades. The bad actors of the world have an extreme advantage over the good-faith researchers, scientists, and politicians who want to study and regulate AI. <\/span><\/p>\n

As the researchers put it:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

It is important to note, however, that the speed with which human academic scientists can perform new experiments and collect new data is very slow, as compared to the easiness with which many AI companies and their algorithms are already conducting experiments with millions of human beings on a daily basis through the Internet. <\/span><\/p>\n

AI companies can test as many hypotheses as they wish, and with samples as huge as they wish, until they find the most pervasive algorithms. Therefore, their ability to influence decisions both explicitly and covertly is certainly much higher than shown in the present research.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

You can read the whole study here<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n