We have all read about artificial intelligence becoming smarter than us, a future in which we become like pets and can only hope AI will be benevolent.
My experience watching tens of millions of interactions between humans and artificial conversational agents, or bots, has convinced me there are far more immediate risks—as well as tremendous opportunities.
From 2007 to 2014 I was CEO of Cognea, which offered a platform to rapidly build complex virtual agents, using a combination of structured and deep learning.
It was used by tens of thousands of developers, including half a dozen Fortune 100 companies, and acquired by IBM Watson in 2014.
As I studied how people interacted with the tens of thousands of agents built on our platform, it became clear that humans are far more willing than most people realize to form a relationship with AI software.
I always assumed we would want to keep some distance between ourselves and AI, but I found the opposite to be true. People are willing to form relationships with artificial agents, provided they are a sophisticated build, capable of complex personalization. We humans seem to want to maintain the illusion that the AI truly cares about us.
This puzzled me, until I realized that in daily life we connect with many people in a shallow way, wading through a kind of emotional sludge. Will casual friends return your messages if you neglect them for a while? Will your personal trainer turn up if you forget to pay them? No, but an artificial agent is always there for you. In some ways, it is a more authentic relationship.
This phenomenon occurred regardless of whether the agent was designed to act as a personal banker, a companion, or a fitness coach. Users spoke to the automated assistants longer than they did to human support agents performing the same function. People would volunteer deep secrets to artificial agents, like their dreams for the future, details of their love lives, even passwords.
These surprisingly deep connections mean even today’s relatively simple programs can exert a significant influence on people—for good or ill.
Every behavioral change we at Cognea wanted, we got. If we wanted a user to buy more product, we could double sales. If we wanted more engagement, we got people going from a few seconds of interaction to an hour or more a day.
This troubled me mightily, so we began to build rules into our systems, to make sure user behavior moved in a positive direction.
We also started pro bono “karmic counterbalance” projects; for example, building agents to be health or relationship coaches.
Unfortunately, the commercial forces driving technology development are not always benevolent. The giant companies at the forefront of AI—across social media, search, and e-commerce—drive the value of their shares by increasing traffic, consumption, and addiction to their technology. They do not have bad intentions, but the nature of capital markets may push us toward AI hell-bent on influencing our behavior toward these goals.
If you can get a user to think, “I want pizza delivered,” rather than asking the AI to buy vegetables to cook a cheaper, healthier meal, you will win. If you can get users addicted to spending 30 hours a week with a “perfect” AI companion that doesn’t resist abuse, rather than a real, complicated human, you will win. I saw over and over that an agent programmed to be neutral or subservient would cause people to escalate their negative behavior, and become more likely to behave the same toward humans.