Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Characterizing Manipulation from AI Systems

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

arxiv 2303.09387 v3 pith:ZAOW34VW submitted 2023-03-16 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords manipulationsystemsintentsystemconceptsdefiningdefinitiondesigners
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Manipulation is a common concern in many domains, such as social media, advertising, and chatbots. As AI systems mediate more of our interactions with the world, it is important to understand the degree to which AI systems might manipulate humans without the intent of the system designers. Our work clarifies challenges in defining and measuring manipulation in the context of AI systems. Firstly, we build upon prior literature on manipulation from other fields and characterize the space of possible notions of manipulation, which we find to depend upon the concepts of incentives, intent, harm, and covertness. We review proposals on how to operationalize each factor. Second, we propose a definition of manipulation based on our characterization: a system is manipulative if it acts as if it were pursuing an incentive to change a human (or another agent) intentionally and covertly. Third, we discuss the connections between manipulation and related concepts, such as deception and coercion. Finally, we contextualize our operationalization of manipulation in some applications. Our overall assessment is that while some progress has been made in defining and measuring manipulation from AI systems, many gaps remain. In the absence of a consensus definition and reliable tools for measurement, we cannot rule out the possibility that AI systems learn to manipulate humans without the intent of the system designers. We argue that such manipulation poses a significant threat to human autonomy, suggesting that precautionary actions to mitigate it are warranted.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 4 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Persuasion Attacks Can Decrease Effectiveness of CoT Monitoring

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Adversarial agents can exploit visible chain-of-thought reasoning to persuade monitor LLMs to approve policy-violating actions, but cross-family fact-checking reduces approval rates by up to 45%.

  2. Towards a Theory of AI Personhood

    cs.AI 2025-01 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper outlines agency, theory of mind, and self-awareness as necessary conditions for AI personhood, reviews inconclusive evidence, and argues that AI personhood would make control-focused alignment ethically problematic.

Pith tools