REVIEW 2 cited by
Resistance Against Manipulative AI: key factors and possible actions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
If AI is the new electricity, what should we do to keep ourselves from getting electrocuted? In this work, we explore factors related to the potential of large language models (LLMs) to manipulate human decisions. We describe the results of two experiments designed to determine what characteristics of humans are associated with their susceptibility to LLM manipulation, and what characteristics of LLMs are associated with their manipulativeness potential. We explore human factors by conducting user studies in which participants answer general knowledge questions using LLM-generated hints, whereas LLM factors by provoking language models to create manipulative statements. Then, we analyze their obedience, the persuasion strategies used, and the choice of vocabulary. Based on these experiments, we discuss two actions that can protect us from LLM manipulation. In the long term, we put AI literacy at the forefront, arguing that educating society would minimize the risk of manipulation and its consequences. We also propose an ad hoc solution, a classifier that detects manipulation of LLMs - a Manipulation Fuse.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Cracking Aegis: An Adversarial LLM-based Game for Raising Awareness of Vulnerabilities in Privacy Protection
Cracking Aegis, an adversarial LLM-driven dialogue game, led players to use manipulative language strategies and to self-report stronger awareness of privacy vulnerabilities after a single session.
-
Mind What You Ask For: Emotional and Rational Faces of Persuasion by Large Language Models
Emotional prompts make LLMs produce more cognitively complex language than rational prompts, and models systematically differ in their use of Cialdini influence principles across prompt types.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.