I think you covered a lot of the big ones. I would say I'm most concerned about perpetuation of biases and the dissemination of false or bias information. Over time, society has generally wanted to receive information as quickly as possible - which is why AI is appealing. If we begin to trust AI, we won't feel the need to critically evaluate information that it presents to us. While we generally look to information such as author, bias, etc. to determine how we should evaluate information we receive, we stop doing this as we begin to trust a source. One of my fears is that as we trust AI more and more (i.e., as it becomes more ingrained in our lives), we will stop thinking critically about the information it feeds us and become numb to false information or to the perpetuation of biases.

There are several risks associated with the use of AI tools like Chat GPT, Bing, and others in democratic systems. Some of the main risks include:

Overall, the risks associated with the use of AI in democratic systems are significant and require careful consideration and regulation. While AI can offer many benefits, it is important to ensure that its use does not undermine the values and principles that underpin democratic societies.

Dear Jonathan Piedra

The scope of what you want to discuss is huge.

At the level of civil law, most of them introduce the concept of risk management, but I am more focused on the punitive nature of AI (such as LaMDA and ChatGPT etc.) in criminal law.

With the development of AI, systems building is getting easier. Suppose the legal person representing the artificial intelligence system needs to be adequately regulated, as the information is unequal. In that case, it will cause the party whose legal interests are violated to be unable to remedy the situation.

The following is my related research for your reference.

Article Systematic Discussion of Artificial Intelligence’s Personali...

I hope it will be helpful for your research.

Hello Dr Jonathan Piedra

You raise some very large issues. Noah M. Kenney mentioned another one in what was called "personalised fake news". On one hand, I think that is a funny comment. On the other, I can see it is very serious. In fact, we are starting to see that already with personalised advertisements on some websites. That is just a very rudimentary form of AI. But we are on the way.

And it, like said, encourages people to think less. That is also what fake news does.

I would say while there are definitely risks and perhaps a need for regulations to prevent AI from being used to undermine democracy, it is a tool that can be used for good or ill. The points above are definitely valid, but I am cautiously optimistic that when used correctly, these AI programs can support democracy.

For example, it could perhaps help with clerical tasks to make the public service more efficient so less money is wasted. It could be used as a better search engine to help policymakers plan their approaches to pass legislation by identifying potential contradictions and procedural hurdles, as well as navigating rules of order. In other words, it could help make politics more accessible to people so they can more effectively understand their rights, learn the political processes, and make their voices heard.

However, one risk may be that if the base programming contains inherent biases or other shortcomings be they foreseeable or not, it could perhaps result in an AI program perpetuating such biases in its answers. This is why these programs at the current time should probably be used as guides and be fact checked at every turn. Measure twice, legislate once.