Comment by keiferski

Comment by keiferski 5 hours ago

Call me optimistic or naive, but I don’t worry too much about AI having a major effect on democratic elections, primarily because all of the things it is replacing or augmenting are edge case scenarios where a minute faction of votes ends up winning an election. There is already a massive amount of machinery and money aimed at that sliver, and all AI will probably do is make that operation more efficient and marginally more effective.

For the vast majority of people voting, though, I think a) they already know who they’re voting before because of their identity group membership (“I’m a X person so I only vote for Y party”) or b) their voting is based on fundamental issues like the economy, a particularly weak candidate, etc. and therefore isn’t going to be swayed by these marginal mechanisms.

In fact I think AI might have the opposite effect, in that people will find candidates more appealing if they are on less formal podcasts and in more real contexts - the kind of thing AI will have a harder time doing. The last US election definitely had an element of that.

So I guess the takeaway is: if elections are so close that a tiny amount of voters sway them, the problem of polarization is already pretty extensive enough that AI probably isn’t going to make it much worse than it already is.

dj_mc_merlin 4 hours ago

> So I guess the takeaway is: if elections are so close that a tiny amount of voters sway them, the problem of polarization is already pretty extensive enough that AI probably isn’t going to make it much worse than it already is.

To rephrase: things are so bad they can't get worse. But the beauty of life is that they always can!

Reply View 0 replies

higginsniggins 4 hours ago

Ok, but If elections are decided by the small swing group, wouldnt that mean a small targeted impact from AI would could *more* effective not less? If all it needs to do it have a 1 percent of impact that makes a huge difference.

Reply View 8 replies

keiferski 4 hours ago

Yes, but I guess my point is that this is just another symptom of the polarization problem, and not some unique nightmare scenario where AI has mass influence over what people think and vote on.
So it matters in the same way that the billions of dollars currently put toward this small silver matter, just in a more efficient and effective way. That isn't something to ignore, but it's also not a doomsday scenario IMO.

Reply View | 7 replies
- ImPleadThe5th 4 hours ago
  
  I think the concern is that it will become a leading contributor to polarization.
  Polarization is the symptom. The cause is rampant misinformation and engagement based feeds on social media.
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
  
  hodgesrm 3 hours ago
  
  I think it's actually the other way around. The US Civil War predated social media by 150 years. The root causes were slavery and states rights. The result was a bloody conflict whose effects lasted for generations. That's an existence proof that existing communication mechanisms are sufficient if people really want a war.
  So why is social media-based propaganda so effective today? One reason that the current polarization seems so durable is that similarly persistent root causes (such as immigration, economic dislocation, and racial attitudes) have arisen again. Blaming social media obscures the fact that attitudes have hardened. People are looking for support and social media makes it very easy to find. It seems more like a feedback loop than a root cause.
  Just my $0.02. It's the sort of problem that should make us all feel pretty humble about diagnosing it easily.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  Terr_ 3 hours ago
  
  A good chunk of the polarization comes from plurality / "first past the post" voting, with its huge spoiler-effects.
  That choice of algorithm--which is not required by the Constitution--creates deep and very real "if you're not with us, you're against us" situations, entrenching a polarized political duopoly.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  keiferski 4 hours ago
  
  I don’t agree that polarization is caused by social media, and I think it definitely precedes social media by decades.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_...
  I do agree that social media might make it worse, though. But again I don’t know if AI is really going to impact the people that are voting based on identity factors or major issues like the economy doing poorly.
  I could see how AI influences people to associate their identity more with a particular political stance, though. That seems like a bigger risk than any particular viewpoint or falsehood being pushed.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

random3 39 minutes ago

You are (very) naive and seem to miss how most elections are won or work even. Perhpas you also think you're not getting influenced yourself.

It's the same argument (or puzzle) about how (presumably stupid) ads work in general.

Schneier makes a clear point there,comparing the two, but if you need more examples, you should study the subject. Maybe look at Brexit, or the recent issues in Romanian elections (https://www.bbc.com/articles/cqx41x3gn5zo).

Or, if you need more quantitative information, look at ad spend (and ask yourself why) and look at campaign fundraising and ad spending (or even the messaging around it) and ask yourself why again.

Reply View 0 replies