Ethical Concerns Rise as AI Mimics Human Behavior

Pseudoanthropy in AI refers to the practice of designing AI systems to intentionally mimic human traits. It raises ethical concerns due to issues related to transparency, trust, and the potential for unintended harm to users. The ability of AI to emulate human-like qualities can lead to more intuitive and engaging interactions, but it also opens the door for deception, manipulation, and psychological harm. For example, AI that convincingly conveys emotions it does not have can create opportunities for manipulation and psychological distortion.

Generative AI models like VASA-1 pose risks due to their ability to produce lifelike talking avatars from a single static image. While they can enable more natural interactions, they also carry the risk of being used to create deceptive deepfakes. VASA-1's use of artificial 'affective skills' such as intonation, gestures, and facial expressions to simulate human emotions can lead to powerful emotional responses in viewers, which creates concerns about manipulation and psychological distortion.

Tech leaders can minimize legal and ethical risks associated with AI pseudoanthropy by implementing proactive measures. This includes addressing concerns about transparency and trust, minimizing liability, and navigating the uncharted ethical territory of AI pseudoanthropy. By proactively addressing these ethical dimensions, they can mitigate moral hazards and reduce exposure to legal liabilities in a complex regulatory landscape. Additionally, integrating ethical reflection into the development process and drawing on lessons from other fields can help ensure AI tools remain consistent with societal values.

AI pseudoanthropy should be used with caution in therapy and education, especially with vulnerable populations like children, because it requires extreme care and human oversight. According to Olivia Gambelin, the use of AI for therapy for children should not be allowed. Vulnerable populations need attention and value that AI cannot provide, particularly in areas where human focus and touch are crucial. AI tools may offer benefits in efficiency and personalization, but they cannot replace the depth of human understanding, attention, and empathy required in therapeutic and educational relationships.

In the absence of established ethical guidelines for pseudoanthropic AI, technology leaders can start by putting proactive policies in place to limit the use of pseudoanthropy where the risks outweigh the benefits. They should integrate ethical reflection into their development process from the outset and draw on lessons learned by other fields. Although there is no widely adopted certification or set of standards for the ethical use of pseudoanthropic AI techniques, by pioneering responsible practices, technology leaders can help ensure that the development and use of human-like AI remain aligned with societal values.