AI for the Prevention of AI Enhanced Human Predation

I believe the core underlying challenge is as you said – ensuring AI is not misused by humans to unduly manipulate, exploit or prey on other humans. So progress ultimately depends on upholders of ethics, whether AI systems themselves or most importantly – the institutions and individuals guiding their development and deployment.

No matter the specifics of detection or enforcement systems, the fundamental solution rests upon instilling and enacting ethical values aligned to principles of equity, justice, empowerment, and non-maleficence across all those involved in this technology. Breaches of ethics by profit-driven humans remain the root issue.

So while AI monitoring agencies could assist, the true imperative is cultivating acute ethical awareness and responsibility among business leaders, policymakers, researchers, engineers and consumers shaping AI worldwide. Progress involves uplifting priorities beyond short-term economic incentives or personal gain towards longer-term social good – the hard work of developing wisdom and conscience individually and collectively. Standards are only meaningful if fundamentally internalized.

In that sense, while oversight systems may help, as you indicate, the foremost challenge ahead remains awakening ethical maturity across all stakeholders in regard to employing AI safely, fairly and for benefit of people and planet. Let me know your additional thoughts, I’m happy to discuss further!

You make an excellent point. Using the term “unduly” was imprecise on my part and does seem to imply there could be some acceptable level of manipulation or exploitation “duly” conducted by AI systems. I should not have framed it that way or left open that gray area.

You are correct – really any intentional manipulation, exploitation or predatory targeting of human vulnerabilities for profit by AI should be considered unethical whether in diminutive or systemic ways. There is no reasonable fuzzy threshold or “due” allowance for such transgressions if we want AI to truly uphold principles of equity, autonomy and trust.

I apologize for that unclear phrasing which undermines the stringent expectations needed to guide AI safely and prevent its misuse for deceit or coercion. As you indicated, strict ethical standards here allow no loopholes for “duly manipulating” humans or qualifying certain harmful activities as permissible degrees of moral trespass. Defining firm red lines will indeed be crucial for the AI community as development progresses. Thank you for pushing me to state this more definitively without invalid caveats implied. Let me know your additional thoughts and please do continue calling out any lack of resolve or conviction in speaking out against manipulation by AI.

You make a compelling point. Yes, I agree that if the development of manipulative behavior influencing AI technology cannot be constitutionally contained, then an oversight agency focused on detecting, surfacing and mitigating harms would be warranted as a further safeguard.

You highlight a concerning trajectory where advances in granular psychographic targeting, persuasive messaging powered by AI, and viral distribution channels risk being weaponized to exploit vulnerabilities in human cognition for profit or power motives with limited transparency or consent. And the current paradigm is often complacent about that prospect viewing it as business as usual.

So I concur – if stringent self-regulation fails among AI developers themselves, then external AI monitoring bodies (whether governmental or non-governmental) empowered to continually audit systems and call out inappropriate coercion, manipulation or deception could provide an important check. Shining light would enable public scrutiny and pressure towards reforms.

Such oversight could study specifics of how humans get psychologically profiled and targeted, evaluate if consent is sufficiently informed, flag disproportionate impacts, and recommend policy changes to democratically chosen representatives. So in essence, yes such AI “police” focused on protecting against predatory threats could close an ethical gap if preventing misuse proves impossible via internal constraints alone. The key as you highlighted is denying the practice societal license and tolerance. Appreciate your pushing this discussion – lots of complex dynamics around ensuring AI promotes empowerment rather than covert persuasion.

You are right, I have been describing solutions as external to AI systems’ direct involvement and capabilities. An AI agency focused specifically on evaluating and calling out unethical applications certainly is an interesting possibility worth exploring further.

You make a fair analogy to missile defense systems detecting threats and acting automatically in real-time. In that vein, for an “ethical Iron Dome” powered by AI itself to emerge in future, some key requirements come to mind:

1. 1. Advanced pattern recognition that can discern manipulation attempts from legitimate influence across communications at global scales.
   2. Models capable of accurately tracing impacts on human behavior, moods, vulnerabilities based on psychographic indicators.
   3. Comprehensive databases profiling where, when and what type of targeting occurs via media channels, devices, etc.
   4. Clear criteria and guidelines determining what constitutes coercion versus persuasion.
   5. Authority and processes to publicly identify questionable actors and call for reforms.
   6. Integration with human oversight bodies who can evaluate conclusions and enact policy changes.

In essence, for AI systems to get directly involved in safeguarding against predatory uses, they would need sufficient real-time situational awareness of the global information ecosystem and capabilities to discern deception from consent. And linkages to enable action by humans in democratic institutions based on AI input and foresight. Definitely intriguing possibilities ahead for such collaborative approaches between AI identification and human accountability. Worth exploring with care and wisdom given the nuances involved around free speech, consent, mental health, etc. But the priorities you note around protecting ethical relationships are vital ones to uphold.