Not My Voice! A Taxonomy of Ethical and Safety Harms of Speech Generators
2402.01708
0
0
Abstract
The rapid and wide-scale adoption of AI to generate human speech poses a range of significant ethical and safety risks to society that need to be addressed. For example, a growing number of speech generation incidents are associated with swatting attacks in the United States, where anonymous perpetrators create synthetic voices that call police officers to close down schools and hospitals, or to violently gain access to innocent citizens' homes. Incidents like this demonstrate that multimodal generative AI risks and harms do not exist in isolation, but arise from the interactions of multiple stakeholders and technical AI systems. In this paper we analyse speech generation incidents to study how patterns of specific harms arise. We find that specific harms can be categorised according to the exposure of affected individuals, that is to say whether they are a subject of, interact with, suffer due to, or are excluded from speech generation systems. Similarly, specific harms are also a consequence of the motives of the creators and deployers of the systems. Based on these insights we propose a conceptual framework for modelling pathways to ethical and safety harms of AI, which we use to develop a taxonomy of harms of speech generators. Our relational approach captures the complexity of risks and harms in sociotechnical AI systems, and yields a taxonomy that can support appropriate policy interventions and decision making for the responsible development and release of speech generation models.
Create account to get full access
Overview
ā¢ This paper presents a taxonomy of ethical and safety harms associated with speech generators, a type of generative AI technology that can create synthetic speech.
ā¢ The authors identify a range of potential harms, from privacy violations and reputational damage to the amplification of social biases and the undermining of democratic discourse.
ā¢ They propose a framework for understanding these harms and suggest ways to mitigate them, such as through improved regulation, technical safeguards, and public education.
Plain English Explanation
Speech generators are AI systems that can create synthetic speech, almost like a computer-generated voice. While these technologies have many beneficial applications, such as assisting people with disabilities or creating more natural-sounding conversational agents, they also pose a range of ethical and safety risks.
The paper outlines a taxonomy of these potential harms, which include link to "psychosocial impacts of generative AI harms" issues like privacy violations, the spread of misinformation, and the undermining of democratic discourse. The authors also discuss link to "mechanism-based approach to mitigating harms from" technical harms, such as the amplification of biases and the potential for abuse by bad actors.
To address these concerns, the researchers suggest a link to "legal risk taxonomy for generative artificial intelligence" multi-pronged approach, including stronger regulations, improved technical safeguards, and public education campaigns to raise awareness of the risks. They emphasize the need for a proactive, link to "laissez-faire harms of algorithmic biases in generative language" collaborative effort to ensure these powerful technologies are developed and deployed responsibly.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by highlighting the rapid advancements in speech synthesis technologies, which have enabled the creation of highly realistic-sounding synthetic voices. While these capabilities can be beneficial in many contexts, the authors argue that they also pose significant ethical and safety risks that deserve careful consideration.
To better understand and address these concerns, the researchers present a comprehensive taxonomy of potential harms associated with speech generators. This taxonomy includes link to "frontier of AI ethics: anticipating and evaluating societal impacts" issues such as privacy violations, reputational damage, the amplification of social biases, and the undermining of democratic discourse.
The authors discuss the technical and societal mechanisms that can lead to these harms, and propose a range of mitigation strategies. These include the development of robust technical safeguards, the implementation of clear legal and regulatory frameworks, and the promotion of public awareness and understanding of the risks associated with speech generators.
Critical Analysis
The researchers have done a commendable job of identifying and categorizing the diverse array of ethical and safety concerns surrounding speech generators. Their taxonomy provides a comprehensive framework for understanding these issues and serves as a valuable resource for policymakers, researchers, and developers working in this space.
That said, the paper does not delve deeply into the nuances of some of the harms it describes, such as the complex interplay between speech generators and the spread of misinformation. Additionally, while the authors propose several mitigation strategies, they could have provided more detailed guidance on how these might be implemented in practice.
Furthermore, the paper does not address the potential for speech generators to be used in beneficial ways, such as improving accessibility for people with disabilities or enhancing the realism of virtual assistants. A more balanced discussion of the tradeoffs and potential upsides of these technologies could have strengthened the overall analysis.
Conclusion
This paper offers a crucial contribution to the ongoing discussion around the ethical and safety implications of speech generators and other generative AI technologies. By presenting a comprehensive taxonomy of potential harms, the authors have laid the groundwork for a more proactive and collaborative approach to mitigating the risks associated with these powerful tools.
As speech synthesis capabilities continue to advance, it will be increasingly important for researchers, developers, policymakers, and the general public to work together to ensure these technologies are deployed responsibly and with a deep consideration for their societal impact. The insights and recommendations provided in this paper can help guide these efforts and drive progress towards a future where the benefits of speech generators are realized while the risks are effectively managed.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
š¤
The Psychosocial Impacts of Generative AI Harms
Faye-Marie Vassel, Evan Shieh, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Thema Monroe-White
0
0
The rapid emergence of generative Language Models (LMs) has led to growing concern about the impacts that their unexamined adoption may have on the social well-being of diverse user groups. Meanwhile, LMs are increasingly being adopted in K-20 schools and one-on-one student settings with minimal investigation of potential harms associated with their deployment. Motivated in part by real-world/everyday use cases (e.g., an AI writing assistant) this paper explores the potential psychosocial harms of stories generated by five leading LMs in response to open-ended prompting. We extend findings of stereotyping harms analyzing a total of 150K 100-word stories related to student classroom interactions. Examining patterns in LM-generated character demographics and representational harms (i.e., erasure, subordination, and stereotyping) we highlight particularly egregious vignettes, illustrating the ways LM-generated outputs may influence the experiences of users with marginalized and minoritized identities, and emphasizing the need for a critical understanding of the psychosocial impacts of generative AI tools when deployed and utilized in diverse social contexts.
5/6/2024
Human-AI Safety: A Descendant of Generative AI and Control Systems Safety
Andrea Bajcsy, Jaime F. Fisac
0
0
Artificial intelligence (AI) is interacting with people at an unprecedented scale, offering new avenues for immense positive impact, but also raising widespread concerns around the potential for individual and societal harm. Today, the predominant paradigm for human--AI safety focuses on fine-tuning the generative model's outputs to better agree with human-provided examples or feedback. In reality, however, the consequences of an AI model's outputs cannot be determined in isolation: they are tightly entangled with the responses and behavior of human users over time. In this paper, we distill key complementary lessons from AI safety and control systems safety, highlighting open challenges as well as key synergies between both fields. We then argue that meaningful safety assurances for advanced AI technologies require reasoning about how the feedback loop formed by AI outputs and human behavior may drive the interaction towards different outcomes. To this end, we introduce a unifying formalism to capture dynamic, safety-critical human--AI interactions and propose a concrete technical roadmap towards next-generation human-centered AI safety.
6/26/2024
Generative AI Misuse: A Taxonomy of Tactics and Insights from Real-World Data
Nahema Marchal, Rachel Xu, Rasmi Elasmar, Iason Gabriel, Beth Goldberg, William Isaac
0
0
Generative, multimodal artificial intelligence (GenAI) offers transformative potential across industries, but its misuse poses significant risks. Prior research has shed light on the potential of advanced AI systems to be exploited for malicious purposes. However, we still lack a concrete understanding of how GenAI models are specifically exploited or abused in practice, including the tactics employed to inflict harm. In this paper, we present a taxonomy of GenAI misuse tactics, informed by existing academic literature and a qualitative analysis of approximately 200 observed incidents of misuse reported between January 2023 and March 2024. Through this analysis, we illuminate key and novel patterns in misuse during this time period, including potential motivations, strategies, and how attackers leverage and abuse system capabilities across modalities (e.g. image, text, audio, video) in the wild.
6/24/2024
š¤
A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI
Seliem El-Sayed, Canfer Akbulut, Amanda McCroskery, Geoff Keeling, Zachary Kenton, Zaria Jalan, Nahema Marchal, Arianna Manzini, Toby Shevlane, Shannon Vallor, Daniel Susser, Matija Franklin, Sophie Bridgers, Harry Law, Matthew Rahtz, Murray Shanahan, Michael Henry Tessler, Arthur Douillard, Tom Everitt, Sasha Brown
0
0
Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, highlighting the need for a systematic study of AI persuasion. The current definitions of AI persuasion are unclear and related harms are insufficiently studied. Existing harm mitigation approaches prioritise harms from the outcome of persuasion over harms from the process of persuasion. In this paper, we lay the groundwork for the systematic study of AI persuasion. We first put forward definitions of persuasive generative AI. We distinguish between rationally persuasive generative AI, which relies on providing relevant facts, sound reasoning, or other forms of trustworthy evidence, and manipulative generative AI, which relies on taking advantage of cognitive biases and heuristics or misrepresenting information. We also put forward a map of harms from AI persuasion, including definitions and examples of economic, physical, environmental, psychological, sociocultural, political, privacy, and autonomy harm. We then introduce a map of mechanisms that contribute to harmful persuasion. Lastly, we provide an overview of approaches that can be used to mitigate against process harms of persuasion, including prompt engineering for manipulation classification and red teaming. Future work will operationalise these mitigations and study the interaction between different types of mechanisms of persuasion.
4/24/2024