I did a three-person conference method on the Democratic Inputs to AI agenda.
- log: https://chat.openai.com/share/ac6a18c9-5cd0-4bb1-a36e-175b32e659f1
- The Japanese translation is as follows
- Polis: https://pol.is/4mmh28rtvz
(DeepL) You are a novelist and you have three characters A, B, and C. A is an early adopter and likes technological progress, B is a laggard and hates change, and C is in the majority. A and B try to persuade each other and C try to persuade me on the agenda I have posted. Refer to the internet if necessary.
Agenda Item 1: How far do you think we should go in personalizing AI assistants like ChatGPT according to the user’s interests and preferences? And what boundaries, if any, exist in doing so?
Character A - Early adopter:
“AI personalization is the future, and it’s a future we should embrace…With AI like ChatGPT, we can create tools that truly understand us and cater to our individual needs and preferences. Imagine an assistant that knows your favorite music, work habits, dietary preferences, etc., and can suggest recommendations based on them. It could even learn your moods and adjust interactions accordingly.
The boundaries should be set by the user. If I want the AI to know my favorite color or my favorite movie, I should be able to allow that information. The key here is consent and transparency; as long as it is clear what data the AI is using and why, and the user has control over it, I see no problem.
In terms of ethical boundaries, AI should never be allowed to manipulate a user’s emotions or beliefs; AI should be a tool and a helper, not a manipulator. However, we believe that with proper regulation and safeguards, this can be achieved.”
Character B - The Laggard
“I understand the appeal of personalized AI, but I think we need to be cautious about how far we allow this to go. There is a fine line between personalization and invasion of privacy. Do we really want an AI that knows everything about us? Can it predict our every move?
I think there should be strict boundaries; the AI should only need to know what it needs to know to perform its function. It does not need to know my favorite colors or my food preferences. It should be a tool, not a friend.
And we need to be aware of the potential for manipulation: if an AI knows too much about us, it could be used to influence our decisions and beliefs. We need to ensure that there are safeguards in place to prevent this.”
Character C “Majority
“There are pros and cons. On the one hand, personalized AI could be incredibly useful. It may help us manage our lives more efficiently and make our interactions with technology more enjoyable. On the other hand, however, there are concerns about privacy and potential manipulation.
The key, I believe, is balance. We need to find ways to enable personalization while protecting privacy and autonomy. This may require setting certain boundaries on what AI can know and do, and allowing users to control their own data.
But I also think there needs to be a broader conversation about this - AI, ethics, and privacy experts need to be involved and the public needs to be heard. This is not a decision that should be made by a few tech companies. It is a decision that concerns all of us and we all need to have a say.”
Try to convince them.
Character A “Early adopter
“I understand B and C’s concerns, but think about it. We already share much of our lives with technology. Our cell phones know where we go, what we buy, and who we talk to. Smart speakers listen to our conversations. Smart TVs know what we are watching. Wouldn’t it be better to have an AI that uses this information to serve us better, instead of just collecting it for no good reason?
And yes, there is a risk of manipulation, but isn’t that the same with any technology? We need to be smart about how we use it and take appropriate safeguards. But we must not allow fear to hold us back from progress.
Mr. C mentions the need for balance. I agree. However, I believe that balance can be achieved by allowing users to control their own data. Let the user decide what to share and what not to share; let the user decide how much to personalize the AI. Isn’t that the ultimate balance?”
Character B “Lagarde
‘A, I see your point, but just because we already share so much of our lives with technology doesn’t mean we should share everything… there’s a difference between an AI knowing my favorite music and an AI knowing my deepest fears and desires.
And while there are risks with any technology, the risks with AI are much greater. This is a technology that can learn and adapt. It can predict our behavior. It can influence our decisions. We need to be very careful how we use it.
Mr. C said that a broader dialogue is needed. I agree. We need to involve the public in this decision; we need to make sure that the benefits of AI personalization outweigh the risks. And we need to make sure that the safeguards are strong enough to protect us.”
Character C “Majority
“A and B, I appreciate the valid points from both perspectives. a, I agree that AI personalization could bring many benefits and that users should be able to control their own data. But B, I also agree that we need to be careful about how far we go with this and that we need to put strong safeguards in place.
I think the key is to proceed with caution; we should continue to develop AI personalization, but we should also continue to have these conversations. We should listen to different perspectives and constantly reassess boundaries and safeguards.
And most importantly, always put the needs and rights of the user first. If we can do that, we believe we will find the right balance.”
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/AIアシスタントのパーソナライゼーションはどこまでやるべきか? using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.