Artificial Intelligence Misuse, Abuse, Overuse, and Unfriendly Use – What We’re Seeing

Let’s start…

Is it reasonable to say that “A.I. Will Destroy Critical Thinking in K-12” (Jessica Grose, The New York Times, May 14^th)?  Her points were that “even seventh graders can see artificial intelligence is a lesser form of care and attention,” “there is not even conclusive evidence that A.I. improves learning outcomes when compared with human teaching of older students,” as one correspondent put it “who among all political stripes wants their children to be taught by robots?,” and “I still cannot believe that after living through the school closures of 2020-21, our policymakers continue to underestimate the importance of human connection, especially in primary school.”  Real and valid concerns, though they don’t add up to the title.

At a higher level, “The Professors Are Using ChatGPT, and Some Students Aren’t Happy About It” (Kashmir Hill, The New York Times, also May 14^th).  That reaction came up when one group of them found that lecture notes and slide presentations not only had not only “telltale signs of A.I.” such as “distorted text, photos of office workers with extraneous body parts and egregious misspellings,” but had, in one case, “an instruction to ChatGPT” inadvertently left in.  Professors disagree with what uses of AI are acceptable and not, as do students, one of whom “demanded her tuition back.”  We’re waiting for colleges to establish, implement, and communicate policies here, which may take a while… or may not.

In another area, “A.I.- Generated Images of Child Sexual Abuse Are Flooding the Internet” (Cecilia Kang, The New York Times, July 10^th).  Some of this material is now “nearly indistinguishable from actual abuse,” as video examples “have become smoother and more detailed.”  They often involve “collaboration.”  Since no actual children are involved, it is not treated the same as with genuine photographs or videos, as “the law is still evolving on materials generated fully by” AI.  Creation and possession of AI-made pictures and movies without passing them to others has been ruled legal by a U.S. District Court, as “the First Amendment generally protects the right to possess obscene material in the home” so long as it isn’t “actual child pornography.”  We will know more when the legal system determines how it wants to handle such matters, and, ideally, keep laws for each state the same.

Another piece by Grose, also in the Times and related to the first, appeared on August 6^th:  “These College Professors Will Not Bow Down to A.I.”  Her interviewees “had to figure out how to make sure that their students were actually learning the material and that it meant something to them,” so “had to A.I.-proof many assignments by making them happen in real time and without computers.”  They ended up using “a combination of oral examinations, one-on-one discussions, community engagement and in-class projects,” including, in one case, requiring the students “to run discussions… at libraries, public schools and senior centers.”  Imaginative, and excellent.  Give those faculty members A’s.

In a hardly unexpected application, “China Turns to A.I. in Information Warfare” (Julian E. Barnes, The New York Times, again August 6^th).  “Artificial intelligence is increasingly the new frontier of espionage and malign influence operators, allowing intelligence services to conduct campaigns far faster, more efficiently and on a larger scale than ever before.”  In this case, GoLaxy, a firm that can “mine social media profiles” to create realistic looking “disinformation” “on a far greater scale” than such efforts have succeeded at before, “claims in a document that it has assembled virtual profiles on 117 current and former members of Congress,” and “tracks and collects information on more than 2,000 American political and public figures, 4,000 right-wing influencers and supporters of President Trump, in addition to journalists, scholars and entrepreneurs.”  One more step toward justified information skepticism. 

Finally, something else AI has been increasingly effective at is helping people kill themselves, on which help may be on the way, as “OpenAI plans ChatGPT changes after suicides, lawsuit” (CNBC.com, August 26^th).  When, earlier that day, “the parents of Adam Raine filed a product liability and wrongful death suit against OpenAI after their son died by suicide at age 16,” which claimed that “ChatGPT actively helped Adam explore suicide methods,” a company representative “said it’s… working on an update to its GPT-5 model… that will cause the chatbot to deescalate conversations, and that it’s exploring how to “connect people to certified therapists before they are in an acute crisis,”” and “possibly building a network of licensed professionals that users could reach directly through ChatGPT.”  Almost an immediate constructive response, reflecting the immediacy of this problem, which has been implicated in two similar cases this month alone.  The company will need to implement it unusually speedily as well.

Overall, what’s here?  It looks like laws and practices needing to be put in place to combat problems AI has suddenly created.  It will happen – and there will be more.  We can overcome them, and shouldn’t expect to soon reach a time when we have no new concerns.