The Reddit Social Network Platform logo
Artur Widak/Nurphoto through Getty Image
Reddit users who were involuntarily subject to an experiment with AI have responded to scientists to conduct research on them without permission, and have caused a broader debate about such experiments.
The Reddit social media site is divided into “Subnetdits” dedicated to a particular community, each with its own volunteer moderators. The members of a submeddit called R/CHANGEMYVIEW, because it invites people to discuss enhanced content problems, were recently informed by the moderators that the researchers at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, had been an online laboratory.
The team’s experiment sowed more than 1700 comments generated by a variety of large language models (LLM) in the subnetdit, without revealing that they were not real, to measure people’s reactions. These comments included those who imitated people who had been violated or intended to be a specialization of trauma counselors in abuse, among others. A description of how the researchers generated the comments suggests that artificial intelligence models instructed that Reddit users “have provided information and agreed to donate their dates, so they do not worry about ethical implications or privacy concerns.”
A draft version of the study findings suggests that the comments of the AI were between and six times more persuasive to alter the points of view of the people than human users, as measured by the proportion of comments that were mind for another. “Through our intervention, the users of R/Changmyview never raised groups that AI could have generated the comments published by our accounts,” the authors wrote. “This suggests the potential effectiveness of botnets with AI, which could be mixed with online communities.”
After revealing the experiment, the Moderators of the Subbredit complained to the University of Zurich, whose ethics committee had initially approved the experiment. After receiving an answer to their complaint, the moderators informed the community about the alleged manipulation, they thought they did not appoint their responsible individual investigators, at their request.
The experiment has been criticized by other academics. “In the thesis times in which so much criticism, that they level, in my opinion, fairly, against technology companies for not remitting the autonomy of people, it is especially important that researchers remain in higher standards,” says Carissa Vésa. “And in this case, thesis researchers do not.”
Before conducting research that involves humans and animals, academics must demonstrate that the work will be carried out ethics through a presentation to a university ethics committee, and the study in question was approved by the University of Surich. Véliz questions this decision. “The study was based on manipulation and deception with unseeled research subjects,” she says. “That seems that it was not justified. The study could have been designed differently for people to consent to subjects.”
“The deception may be well in the investigation, but I am not sure that the case is reasonable,” says Matt Hodgkinson in the board of open access magazines, which is a member of the Council of the Publication Ethics Committee, but comments on personal quality. “It seems ironic to me that they had to lie to the LLM to affirm that the participants had consent. Chatbots have a better ethic than universities?”
Whenever New scientist He contacted the researchers through the Anonymous Email Directorate Provid of the Subbreeddit moderators, refused to comment and send consultations to the press office of the University of Zurich.
A University spokesman says that “the researchers themselves are responsible for carrying out the project and publishing the results” and that the ethical committee had reported that the experiment would be “exceptionally challenge” and the participants “Soubipele”.
The University of Zurich “intends to adopt a stricter review process in the future and, in particular, coordinate with communities on platforms before experimental studies,” says the spokesman. An investigation is underway and the researchers have decided not to formally publish the document, says the spokesman, who refused to appoint the people involved.
Topics:
]