Will AI become a tool of oppression by human organizations?

The AI that monitors your word processing to be able to suggest helpful topics, rewrites, styles, and extensions, etc. will also be monitoring your content making you a potential target of political oppression by government, tech companies, political parties, social media mobs and vigilantes, and even foreign agents plugged into the network . …. and there may not be much you can do about it except to refuse to use AI from companies you can’t trust. Which may be all of them.

Too much attention is being made to make AI “safe” and “ethical” and not enough attention is being paid to preventing human misusing the AI and not being safe or ethical themselves.

Focusing on the technology may be a smokescreen for the evasion of the responsibility to pay attention to where it belongs. That is, on the providers of the technology and the authorities overseeing and colluding with them and those who have power over it who should not have it.

That includes unqualified members of the boards of directors.

I asked Chatty4 to rewrite my post and here is what is said:

The article you’ve presented raises significant concerns about the potential misuse of AI in surveillance and oppression. It highlights the dual nature of AI as both a tool for efficiency and a possible instrument for monitoring and control by various entities, including governments, corporations, political groups, and even malicious individuals.

1. **Surveillance and Privacy Concerns**: The article points out that AI systems, like those used in word processing for helpful suggestions, also have the capacity to monitor user content. This dual-use nature raises privacy concerns, especially if such data is accessible to third parties who might use it for political oppression or other unethical purposes.

2. **Lack of Trust in AI Providers**: The suggestion to avoid AI from untrustworthy companies underscores a broader issue of trust in technology providers. The difficulty lies in determining which companies are trustworthy, especially when the technology’s inner workings and data handling practices are often opaque.

3. **Ethical vs. Safe AI**: The article distinguishes between making AI “safe” and “ethical” and the importance of preventing its misuse by humans. While much attention is given to developing AI that is intrinsically safe (e.g., not causing harm through its decisions or biases), there’s arguably less focus on how humans might use AI unethically.

4. **Responsibility Evasion and Technology Focus**: The focus on technology as a potential smokescreen for evading responsibility is a critical point. It suggests that while technological advancements are important, equal attention should be paid to the entities that provide, oversee, and control these technologies.

5. **Role of Oversight and Governance**: The mention of unqualified board members indicates a broader issue in corporate governance and oversight. It suggests a need for more knowledgeable and ethical individuals in positions of power to ensure responsible use of AI.

The article prompts several key questions:

- How can we balance the benefits of AI in improving efficiency with the need to protect individual privacy?- What criteria should be used to evaluate the trustworthiness of AI providers?- How can we ensure that the development of AI is accompanied by ethical guidelines and regulations to prevent misuse?- What mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that those in power do not misuse AI for surveillance or oppression?- How can we improve the knowledge and ethical standards of those in oversight roles regarding AI technology?

These questions are crucial for developing a comprehensive understanding of AI’s societal impact and ensuring its responsible use.