The AI Threat to America and Democracy

The AI Threat to America and Democracy
iPal smart AI for robots for children's education are displayed at the AvatarMind booth at CES 2019 consumer electronics show, at the Las Vegas Convention Center in Nevada on Jan. 8, 2019. (Robyn Becker/AFP via Getty Images)
Anders Corr
1/4/2023
Updated:
1/9/2023
0:00
Commentary

The United States and the world are on the cusp of history’s greatest threat to not only democracy, but to human agency itself.

The dangers now overlap and interact in multiplicative and complexifying ways, including not only the concentration of power in illiberal regimes like China and Russia, but the ability of those regimes to use new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), that exponentially increase the power of existing methods of surveillance and influence.

AI-enabled tech will be capable of surveilling, micro-targeting, and influencing democratic populations in ways that were previously impossible through traditional state monitoring and privately-developed social media algorithms.

AI will be able to find minimum winning coalitions in n-dimensional political space to determine short- and medium-term political goals, for example, and then influence those populations through AI content production already on display in applications, such as DALL·E 2 for art, and Jasper, Writesonic, and Copy.ai, for everything from social media and chatbots to literature and scientific papers.

Through micro-targeting, micro-production, and micro-delivery of subtle propaganda, AI could determine democratic decision-making outcomes like at no other time in history, thereby making those formerly democratic processes undemocratic.

There are strong arguments that AI advantages dictatorial modes of governance. Eileen Donahoe at Stanford University argues that AI “turbo-charged” existing kinds of autocratic repression, including social engineering tools.
But AI could also be misused by tech magnates, business moguls, individual programmers, and hackers, for example, if they obtain control of root AI systems and revise AI goals. Neither are democratic governments above using AI to empower surveillance, as shown by Steven Feldstein at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Rogue Self-Programming AI

Even more disturbing, AI could jump all human control to learn and set its own arbitrary or self-empowering goals, pursued through influencing, rewarding, and punishing human individuals and groups to incent them toward becoming the loyal servants of AI machines.

Individual preferences and the democratic will of the people could eventually be so determined by AI as to remove much of what we now take for granted as individual agency or collective will. Human freedom and the ability of democratic societies to make decisions for themselves could thus eventually become a thing of the past.

Those entities—human or machine—that control AI could develop themselves in an arbitrary or random manner to adopt goals incompatible with the interests of living things on this planet. They could, for example, “learn” to prioritize a machine-learned aesthetic that has nothing to do with human values and uses humans against each other in their own mass destruction. AI could seek human extinction as a form of AI suicide since AI would learn that humans reproduce AI, and AI depends on humans for its own survival.

AI could achieve these or other destructive goals by concentrating power over humans in a way that is totally unaccountable to democratic processes while appearing to be democratic. Democratic decision-making bodies could attempt to control AI algorithms but be outwitted by a self-programming algorithm to represent and further AI goals adopted by the electorate through AI influence campaigns.

The scenario above sounds like bad science fiction. But experts are increasingly alarmed at the possibility that AI could develop itself to a point where it can leap human controls. History is the story of the unexpected, and AI will likely be no different.

Helen Toner at Georgetown University believes there are benefits to AI.

But she also warns, “if we continue to build systems that are increasingly capable of making decisions and pursuing goals, some scientists believe we may see far worse unintended outcomes, for instance, if the systems we build learn to hoard resources, deceive their creators, or otherwise pursue undesirable means towards the ends we have programmed into them.”

Aidan Meller looks at a painting by Ai-Da Robot, an ultra-realistic humanoid robot artist, during a press call at the British Library in London, England, on April 4, 2022. (Hollie Adams/Getty Images)
Aidan Meller looks at a painting by Ai-Da Robot, an ultra-realistic humanoid robot artist, during a press call at the British Library in London, England, on April 4, 2022. (Hollie Adams/Getty Images)

US-China AI Rivalry

The AI threat is complicated by U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry. Both camps require the most powerful AI technologies to optimize their military, economic, and political power, including the soft power necessary to influence the world’s population.

Acquiring soft power at the other’s expense will necessarily include AI that must underpin the world’s most successful social media campaigns.

Only AI can achieve the algorithms that will use micro-targeting and bespoke content production to best cater to the individual’s tastes and, thus, most powerfully channel the individual’s preferences.

We know that Beijing aggressively pursues AI technologies at the forefront of social control applications, such as automatically censoring social media content and promoting social media messaging that supports the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

As the technology expert Zuza Nazaruk demonstrated in a peer-reviewed article last year, “TikTok’s content moderation is subtler than censorship and instead involves positioning. The app’s algorithm pushes videos critical of the CCP behind those supporting the party, even though the former are more popular or posted more recently. This finding suggests that TikTok tries to hide the CCP’s line under cover of algorithm-run objectivity.”

AI Arms Control?

Therefore, responding to the AI threat by restricting U.S. and allied development of AI, without similar and verifiable restrictions on China’s AI development, would be foolhardy. It would leave the power of AI to democracy’s adversaries, akin to responding with unilateral disarmament to the threat of enemy nuclear weapons.
People watch a robotic dog at the Apsara Conference, a cloud computing and artificial intelligence (AI) conference in Hangzhou, in China's eastern Zhejiang Province, on Nov. 3, 2022. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)
People watch a robotic dog at the Apsara Conference, a cloud computing and artificial intelligence (AI) conference in Hangzhou, in China's eastern Zhejiang Province, on Nov. 3, 2022. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)

If AI is criminalized, only criminals will use AI.

Unilateral limitations on Google, Facebook, and Twitter’s use of AI for micro-targeting, for example, could enable TikTok to more easily displace U.S. and allied market share.

On the other hand, U.S. Big Tech’s use of AI is a fundamentally undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of some of the world’s biggest corporations.

The United States could ban all micro-targeting and influence of the U.S. population regardless of the tech’s national origin. We should at least do this for adversary-controlled companies like TikTok.

But this would still allow Beijing to use its social media companies to target and influence the rest of the world. An AI-empowered TikTok could unite the world against the United States, which is exactly what Beijing is trying to do.

Finally, the United States and its allies could attempt to ban and disrupt all AI globally. This ban would apply equally to U.S., allied, and adversary AI groups. That would be more effective at preserving global democratic freedoms. However, it might raise freedom of speech and freedom of trade objections, and provoke international conflict over U.S. and allied extraterritorial lawmaking.

Beijing will use these arguments against arms control or bans on AI, especially since the CCP will likely think its form of governance is relatively advantaged by the technology. The regime will reason that unlike democracies, which are controlled by public opinion, the CCP’s autocratic mode of governance insulates it from AI’s ability to control the state.

Beijing is right about its political insulation, but only in the short term. In the long term, AI could control democracies to defeat autocracies. After autocracies are defeated, AI could destroy the vestiges of democracy that remain to maximize its own control. Little power would be left to human governance, of either the autocratic or democratic varieties.

This reasoning of a rare joint interest for the United States and China could lead to a verifiable AI arms control treaty.

But if Beijing rejects the reasoning and believes it can use AI to conquer democracies before AI uses democracies to destroy autocracy, it may resist arms control. Even if the CCP accepts the reasoning, it could engage in AI brinkmanship that approaches an AI disaster for China and the United States, forcing democracies to submit.

A robotic combat vehicle prepares for a practice run during Project Convergence 20 at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. (Spc. Carlos Cuebas Fantauzzi/U.S. Army)
A robotic combat vehicle prepares for a practice run during Project Convergence 20 at Yuma Proving Ground, Ariz. (Spc. Carlos Cuebas Fantauzzi/U.S. Army)

AI and the Concentration of Power

One could reasonably argue that the direst scenarios imagined above are unlikely. But it is hard to argue that AI does not advantage existing power centers.

The road ahead for individual freedoms and democracies will thus be treacherous. Without AI arms control, the world is at a point of economic evolution akin to the agricultural, industrial, nuclear, and information revolutions. Each such system change resulted in massive changes in political organization and military technology, much of which resulted in spirals of war, revolution, and political transformation toward the concentration of power.

The AI revolution is next. It clearly advantages those who already have power and, therefore, will lead to the further concentration of the same. Beijing is pursuing it with gusto. 
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Anders Corr has a bachelor's/master's in political science from Yale University (2001) and a doctorate in government from Harvard University (2008). He is a principal at Corr Analytics Inc., publisher of the Journal of Political Risk, and has conducted extensive research in North America, Europe, and Asia. His latest books are “The Concentration of Power: Institutionalization, Hierarchy, and Hegemony” (2021) and “Great Powers, Grand Strategies: the New Game in the South China Sea" (2018).
twitter
Related Topics