In the ever-evolving sphere of political campaigning, the emergence of AI-powered tools like Ashley, the virtual campaign volunteer, has sparked both excitement and trepidation in the United States for now, and potentially all democracies later. On one hand, the prospect of leveraging generative AI for personalised, large-scale voter engagement seems revolutionary. Still, the concerns surrounding potential disinformation and the lack of regulatory frameworks create a complex tableau that demands careful consideration. At the heart of this technological leap is Ashley, an artificial intelligence campaigner capable of holding an infinite number of customised one-onone conversations simultaneously. Unlike traditional robo-callers, Ashley’s responses are not pre-recorded.

She engages voters dynamically, analysing their profiles to tailor conversations around their key concerns. For candidates, this tool provides a means to better understand voters, communicate in multiple languages, and conduct a myriad of high bandwidth conversations. The promise of enhanced voter engagement, however, comes hand-inhand with concerns raised by figures like OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The worry centres around the potential for generative AI to facilitate one-on-one interactive disinformation, further complicating an already polarised political landscape grappling with the challenges of deep fakes. Mr Altman’s cautionary stance highlights the delicate balance between leveraging technology for democratic processes and safeguarding the integrity of elections. The lack of specific regulations governing AI in political campaigns adds another layer of complexity.

Advertisement

As Ashley’s creators push the boundaries of what is technologically feasible, the legal grey area becomes increasingly evident. While laws in the USA regulate robo-calls in the context of telemarketing, the application of such regulations to AIpowered political campaigners remains uncertain. This uncertainty has prompted some states in the US to consider legislation to regulate deep fakes in elections, yet the legal landscape is far from settled. What sets Ashley apart is the proactive decision by its creators to disclose its AI nature and give it a robotic-sounding voice. This transparency is a commendable step, acknowledging the ethical implications of deploying AI in political discourse. It also contrasts with fears that other companies might create AI callers indistinguishable from real humans, potentially misleading voters and exacerbating misinformation. The unique governance structure proposed by Ashley’s creators, reminiscent of OpenAI’s approach, adds a layer of accountability. A committee empowered to force public disclosure of any concerning issues reflects a commitment to ethical considerations over profit motives. As we navigate this uncharted territory, it becomes imperative for regulators and legislators to pay attention.

The speed at which AI technology is advancing, as evidenced by Ashley’s capabilities, demands a proactive approach to ensure that its deployment in political campaigns aligns with democratic principles. The public must be informed, and regulations should be crafted to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. In the era of AI in politics, the line between innovation and risk is razor-thin. How we tread this line will determine whether AI-powered campaigners become a force for positive change or open a Pandora’s Box of unforeseen consequences.