In the Face of Rampant AI, is ‘Data Poisoning’ a New Form of Civil Disobedience?
"c0lo" writes:
In the face of rampant AI, is 'data poisoning' a new form of civil disobedience?:
[...] Acts of AI resistance range from social sanctions and boycotts, to strikes, protests, public outcry and lawsuits. Driving these acts are perceived threats to jobs, ethics, safety, democracy and sovereignty, and the environment.
AI is also described as an existential risk to creative industries, including music, fiction and film. In the United Kingdom, generative AI has been characterised as an "industrial scale theft" that threatens a 124.6 billion (A$237bn) creative sector and more than 2.4 million jobs.
People have long used civil disobedience to address social injustices. Famously, Rosa Parks' refusal to sit at the back of a bus in Alabama led to a 13-month bus boycott by tens of thousands of Black residents. It only ended when racial segregation on public transport was deemed unconstitutional in the United States.
Acts of sabotage have also long been central to collective action against injustice. In fights for labour rights, workers have employed diverse tactics to reduce efficiency and productivity. This has ranged from hotel workers putting salt in sugar bowls to farm workers breaking machinery.
Data poisoning can be viewed as a modern version of these historic actions.
[...] Data poisoning means deliberately inserting misleading, biased, or nonsensical content into the data AI models learn from, to make their outputs worse. Only 250 poisoned documents in a dataset could compromise outputs across AI models of any size.
There are various ways to poison data. Some require highly technical skills, others are accessible to anyone with an internet connection - if their text or images are used as training data.
Researchers have developed several data poisoning tools that exploit the vulnerabilities of AI models. Glaze and Nightshade enable artists to make poisoned visual images that can't be used as training data. The tool CoProtector defends against the exploitation of open source code repositories like Github. Monash University and the Australian Federal Police have created Silverer, enabling social media users to doctor personal images to prevent them from being used in deepfakes.
But you don't need a tool or advanced skills to affect AI. Simply creating websites with factitious information, making jokes in Reddit, feeding models their own outputs, or editing Wikipedia can poison data.
Data poisoning is commonly presented as a dangerous act perpetrated by "cyber criminals" or "malicious actors". But what if it's used to protect human rights?
Is data poisoning legal? Is it ethical?
Legal obligations related to data poisoning are often directed to AI developers and organisations. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act requires that appropriate measures are adopted to prevent and detect data poisoning.
The legal status of AI data poisoning by individual users is less clear. Criminal penalties may apply under US or UK computer fraud and misuse laws. Interference with an AI model would also likely breach the terms of service of AI companies.
If AI data poisoning is unlawful, questions could still be asked about its ethical status. Philosophers have long recognised that civil disobedience can be justifiable in circumstances where legally sanctioned practices produce serious injustice.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.