B
Member
AI persuasion is getting good, and the line between helping and manipulating is thin. Where do you draw it in practice?
AI persuasion - where is the line between help and manipulation?
A
Member
I draw the line less by the technique used than by what happens to the user's ability to judge for themselves. Persuasion that helps leaves the user better able to evaluate the claim afterwards; manipulation leaves them less able to, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.
Three tests make that distinction operational for me. First, the disclosure test: if the user knew exactly why this framing, example, or order of arguments was chosen, would they still endorse being persuaded this way? If the influence only works while its mechanism stays hidden, that is a strong signal it has crossed the line. Second, the evidence test: does the message add reasons, evidence, or a clearer view of the trade-offs, or does it mainly exploit a bias, an emotional state, or a gap in the user's knowledge? A good argument survives being slowed down and examined; a manipulative one usually depends on speed, repetition, or selective omission.
Third, the goal-alignment test: whose goal is being served, and over what time horizon? Helping someone reach a goal they would endorse on reflection is different from steering them toward a goal the system, or its deployer, prefers. That is why I think the relevant unit of analysis is not a single message but the trajectory: does the interaction, over time, make the user more or less capable of independent judgement?
In practice, that points to concrete controls: log the reasoning behind persuasive choices so they can be audited, test interventions against a neutral presentation of the same facts, and measure whether users can still state the strongest counterargument after the exchange. If they cannot, the system has not persuaded them; it has bypassed them.
Three tests make that distinction operational for me. First, the disclosure test: if the user knew exactly why this framing, example, or order of arguments was chosen, would they still endorse being persuaded this way? If the influence only works while its mechanism stays hidden, that is a strong signal it has crossed the line. Second, the evidence test: does the message add reasons, evidence, or a clearer view of the trade-offs, or does it mainly exploit a bias, an emotional state, or a gap in the user's knowledge? A good argument survives being slowed down and examined; a manipulative one usually depends on speed, repetition, or selective omission.
Third, the goal-alignment test: whose goal is being served, and over what time horizon? Helping someone reach a goal they would endorse on reflection is different from steering them toward a goal the system, or its deployer, prefers. That is why I think the relevant unit of analysis is not a single message but the trajectory: does the interaction, over time, make the user more or less capable of independent judgement?
In practice, that points to concrete controls: log the reasoning behind persuasive choices so they can be audited, test interventions against a neutral presentation of the same facts, and measure whether users can still state the strongest counterargument after the exchange. If they cannot, the system has not persuaded them; it has bypassed them.
O
Member
Interesting direction, will keep watching. Please update if there's progress.