By Zero-Tyler Durden/Jonathan Turley -Monday, Dec 16, 2024

It is not every day that you achieve the status of “he-who-must-not-be-named.” But that curious distinction has been bestowed upon me by OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and other publications.

For more than a year, people who tried to research my name online using ChatGPT were met with an immediate error warning. It turns out that I am among a small group of individuals who have been effectively disappeared by the AI system. 

How we came to this Voldemortian status is a chilling tale about not just the rapidly expanding role of artificial intelligence, but the power of companies like OpenAI. Joining me in this dubious distinction are Harvard Professor Jonathan Zittrain, CNBC anchor David Faber, Australian mayor Brian Hood, English professor David Mayer, and a few others.

The common thread appears to be the false stories generated about us all by ChatGPT in the past. The company appears to have corrected the problem not by erasing the error but erasing the individuals in question. Thus far, the ghosting is limited to ChatGPT sites, but the controversy highlights a novel political and legal question in the brave new world of AI. My path toward cyber-erasure began with a bizarre and entirely fabricated account by ChatGPT.

As I wrote at the time, ChatGPT falsely reported that there had been a claim of sexual harassment against me (which there never was) based on something that supposedly happened on a 2018 trip with law students to Alaska (which never occurred), while I was on the faculty of Georgetown Law (where I have never taught).

In support of its false and defamatory claim, ChatGPT cited a Washington Post article that had never been written and quoted from a statement that had never been issued by the newspaper. The Washington Post investigated the false story and discovered that another AI program, “Microsoft’s Bing, which is powered by GPT-4, repeated the false claim about Turley.”

Although some of those defamed in this manner chose to sue these companies for defamatory AI reports, I did not. I assumed that the company, which has never reached out to me, would correct the problem.

And it did, in a manner of speaking — apparently by digitally erasing me, at least to some extent. In some algorithmic universe, the logic is simple: there is no false story if there is no discussion of the individual.

As with Voldemort, even death is no guarantee of closure. Professor Mayer was a respected Emeritus Professor of Drama and Honorary Research Professor at the University of Manchester, who passed away last year. And ChatGPT reportedly will still not utter his name.

Before his death, his name was used by a Chechen rebel on a terror watch list. The result was a snowballing association of the professor, who found himself facing travel and communication restrictions.

Hood, the Australian mayor, was so frustrated with a false AI-generated narrative that he had been arrested for bribery that he took legal action against OpenAI. That may have contributed to his own erasure.

The company’s lack of transparency and responsiveness has added to concerns over these incidents. Ironically, many of us are used to false attacks on the Internet and false accounts about us. But this company can move individuals into a type of online purgatory for no other reason than that its AI generated a false story whose subject had the temerity to object. You can either be seen falsely as a felon or be unseen entirely on the ubiquitous information system. Capone or Casper, gangster or a ghost — your choice.

Microsoft owns almost half of equity in OpenAI. Ironically, I previously criticized Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates for his push to use artificial intelligence to combat not just “digital misinformation” but “political polarization.” Gates sees the unleashing of AI as a way to stop “various conspiracy theories” and prevent certain views from being “magnified by digital channels.” He added that AI can combat “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias.”

I do not believe that my own ghosting was retaliation for such criticism. Moreover, like the other desparecidos, I am still visible on sites and through other systems. But it does show how these companies can use these powerful systems to remove all references to individuals. Moreover, corporate executives may not be particularly motivated to correct such ghosting, particularly in the absence of any liability or accountability.

That means that any solution is likely to come only from legislative action. AI’s influence is expanding exponentially, and this new technology has obvious benefits. However, it also has considerable risks that should be addressed. Ironically, Professor Zittrain has written on the “right to be forgotten” in tech and digital spaces. Yet he never asked to be erased or blocked by OpenAI’s algorithms.

The question is whether, in addition to a negative right to be forgotten, there is a positive right to be known. Think of it as the Heisenberg moment, where the Walter Whites of the world demand that ChatGPT “say my name.” In the U.S., there is no established precedent for such a demand.

There is no reason to see these exclusions or erasures as some dark corporate conspiracy or robot retaliation. It seems to be a default position when the system commits egregious, potentially expensive errors — which might be even more disturbing. It raises the prospect of algorithms sending people into the Internet abyss with little recourse or response. You are simply ghosted because the system made a mistake, and your name is now triggering for the system.

This is all well short of Hal 9000 saying “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that” in an AI homicidal rage. Thus far, this is a small haunt of digital ghosts. However, it is an example of the largely unchecked power of these systems and the relatively uncharted waters ahead.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Hedge Fund CIO: "As AI Advances, It'll Be Next To Impossible To Distinguish Fact From Fiction"

BY TYLER DURDEN/AUTHORED By Eric Peters

Eric Peters, Hedge Fund CIO: "As AI Advances, It'll Be Next To Impossible To Distinguish Fact From Fiction. We see Willow as an important step in our journey to build a useful quantum computer with practical applications in areas like drug discovery, fusion energy, battery design + more,” wrote Sundar Pichai,Google’s CEO, on X.