គណៈកម្មការពាណិជ្ជកម្មសហព័ន្ធមានគោលបំណងទម្លាក់ញញួរទៅលើការអះអាងដែលមិនមានមូលដ្ឋានច្បាស់លាស់អំពីការបង្កើត AI ChatGPT និង AI ផ្សេងទៀត ព្រមានអំពីក្រមសីលធម៌ AI និងច្បាប់ AI

Bring down the hammer.

That’s what the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says that it is going to do regarding the ongoing and worsening use of outsized unfounded claims about Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In an official blog posting on February 27, 2023, entitled “Keep Your AI Claims In Check” by attorney Michael Atleson of the FTC Division of Advertising Practices, some altogether hammering words noted that AI is not only a form of computational high-tech but it has become a marketing jackpot that has at times gone beyond the realm of reasonableness:

• “And what exactly is ‘artificial intelligence’ anyway? It’s an ambiguous term with many possible definitions. It often refers to a variety of technological tools and techniques that use computation to perform tasks such as predictions, decisions, or recommendations. But one thing is for sure: it’s a marketing term. Right now, it’s a hot one. And at the FTC, one thing we know about hot marketing terms is that some advertisers won’t be able to stop themselves from overusing and abusing them” (FTC website posting).

AI proffers big-time possibilities for marketers that want to really go berserk and hype the heck out of whatever underlying AI-augmented or AI-driven product or service is being sold to consumers.

You see, the temptation to push the envelope of hyperbole has got to be enormous, especially when a marketer sees other firms doing the same thing. Competitive juices demand that you do a classic over-the-top when your competition is clamoring that their AI walks on water. Perhaps your AI is ostensibly better because it flies in the air, escapes the bounds of gravity, and manages to chew gum at the same time.

Into the zany use of AI-proclaimed proficiencies that border on or outright verge into falsehoods and deception steps the long arm of the law, namely the FTC and other federal, state, and local agencies (see my ongoing coverage of such efforts, including international regulatory endeavors too, at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ).

You are potentially aware that as a federal agency, the FTC encompasses the Bureau of Consumer Protection, mandated to protect consumers from considered deceptive acts or practices in commercial settings. This often arises when companies lie or mislead consumers about products or services. The FTC can wield its mighty governmental prowess to pound down on such offending firms.

The FTC blog posting that I cited also made this somewhat zesty pronouncement:

• “Marketers should know that — for FTC enforcement purposes — false or unsubstantiated claims about a product’s efficacy are our bread and butter.”

In a sense, those that insist on unduly exaggerating their claims about AI are aiming to be នំបុ័ងអាំង. The FTC can seek to get the AI claimant to desist and potentially face harsh penalties for the transgressions undertaken.

Here are some of the potentials actions that the FTC can take:

• “When the Federal Trade Commission finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims. When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that an ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses” (FTC website per the section on ការពិតនៅក្នុងការផ្សាយពាណិជ្ជកម្ម)

There have been a number of relatively recent high-profile examples of the FTC going after false advertising incidents.

For example, L’Oreal got in trouble for advertising that their Paris Youth Code skincare products were “clinically proven” to make people look “visibly younger” and “boost genes”, the gist of such claims turned out to not be backed by substantive scientific evidence and the FTC took action accordingly. Another prominent example consisted of Volkswagen advertising that their diesel cars utilized “clean diesel” and ergo supposedly emitted quite low amounts of pollution. In this instance, the emission tests that Volkswagen performed were fraudulently undertaken to mask their true emissions. Enforcement action by the FTC led to a compensation arrangement for impacted consumers.

The notion that AI ought to also get similar scrutiny as per unsubstantiated or perhaps entirely fraudulent claims is certainly a timely and worthy cause.

There is a pronounced mania about AI right now as stoked by the advent of AI បង្កើត. This particular type of AI is considered ទូទៅ because it is able to generate outputs that nearly seem to be devised by a human hand, though the AI computationally is doing so. An AI app known as ChatGPT by the company OpenAI has garnered immense attention and driven AI mania into the stratosphere. I will in a moment explain what generative AI is all about and describe the nature of the AI app ChatGPT.

Of course, AI overall has been around for a while. There have been a series of roller-coaster ups and downs associated with the promises of what AI can attain. You might say that we are at a new high point. Some believe this is just the starting point and we are going further straight up. Others fervently disagree and assert that the generative AI gambit will hit a wall, namely, it will soon reach a dead-end, and the roller coaster ride will descend.

ពេលវេលានឹងប្រាប់។

The FTC has previously urged that claims covering AI need to be suitably balanced and reasonable. In an official FTC blog posting of April 19, 2021, entitled “Aiming For Truth, Fairness, And Equity In Your Company’s Use Of AI”, Elisa Jillson noted the several ways that enforcement actions legally arise and especially highlighted concerns over AI imbuing undue biases:

• “The FTC has decades of experience enforcing three laws important to developers and users of AI.”
• "Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. That would include the sale or use of – for example – racially biased algorithms.”
• "ច្បាប់ធ្វើរបាយការណ៍ឥណទានដោយយុត្តិធម៌. The FCRA comes into play in certain circumstances where an algorithm is used to deny people employment, housing, credit, insurance, or other benefits.”
• "ច្បាប់ឱកាសស្មើភាពឥណទាន. The ECOA makes it illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance.”

One standout remark in the aforementioned blog posting mentions this plainly spoken assertion:

• “Under the FTC Act, your statements to business customers and consumers alike must be truthful, non-deceptive, and backed up by evidence” (ibid).

The legal language of Section 5 of the FTC Act echoes that sentiment:

• “Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful” (source: Section 5 of the FTC Act).

Seems like a relief to know that the FTC and other governmental agencies are keeping their eyes open and poised with a hammer dangling over the heads of any organization that might dare to emit unfair or deceptive messaging about AI.

Does all of this imply that you can rest easy and assume that those AI makers and AI promoters will be cautious in their marketing claims about AI and they will be mindful of not making exorbitant or outrageous exhortations?

Heck ទេ។

You can expect that marketers will be marketers. They will aim to make outsized and unfounded claims about AI until the end of time. Some will do so and be blindly unaware that making such claims can get them and their company into trouble. Others know that the claims could cause trouble, but they figure that the odds of getting caught are slim. There are some too that are betting they can skirt the edge of the matter and legally argue that they did not slip over into the murky waters of being untruthful or deceptive.

Let the lawyers figure that out, some AI marketers say. Meanwhile, full steam ahead. If someday the FTC or some other governmental agency knocks at the door, so be it. The money to be made is now. Perhaps put a dollop of the erstwhile dough into a kind of trust fund for dealing with downstream legal issues. For now, the money train is underway, and you would be mindbogglingly foolish to miss out on the easy gravy to be had.

There is a slew of rationalizations about advertising AI to the ultimate hilt:

• Everybody makes outlandish AI claims, so we might as well do so too
• No one can say for sure where the dividing line is regarding truths about AI
• We can wordsmith our claims about our AI to stay an inch or two within the safety zone
• The government won’t catch on to what we are doing, we are a small fish in a big sea
• Wheels of justice are so slow that they cannot keep pace with the speed of AI advances
• If consumers fall for our AI claims, that’s on them, not on us
• The AI developers in our firm said we could say what I said in our marketing claims
• Don’t let the Legal team poke their noses in this AI stuff that we are trumpeting, they will simply put the kibosh on our stupendous AI marketing campaigns and be a proverbial stick in the mud
• ផ្សេងទៀត

Are those rationalizations a recipe for success or a recipe for disaster?

For AI makers that aren’t paying attention to these serious and sobering legal qualms, I would suggest they are heading for a disaster.

In consulting with many AI companies on a daily and weekly basis, I caution them that they should be seeking cogent legal advice since the money they are making today is potentially going to be given back and more so once they find themselves facing civil lawsuits by consumers as coupled by governmental enforcement action. Depending on how far things go, criminal repercussions can sit in the wings too.

In today’s column, I will be addressing the rising concerns that marketing hype underlying AI is increasingly crossing the line into worsening unsavory and deceptive practices. I will look at the basis for these qualms. Furthermore, this will occasionally include referring to those that are using and leveraging the AI app ChatGPT since it is the 600-pound gorilla of generative AI, though do keep in mind that there are plenty of other generative AI apps and they generally are based on the same overall principles.

ទន្ទឹមនឹងនេះ អ្នកប្រហែលជាឆ្ងល់ថា តាមពិតទៅ AI ជំនាន់នោះជាអ្វី?

ដំបូង​យើង​និយាយ​អំពី​មូលដ្ឋាន​គ្រឹះ​នៃ AI ជំនាន់​មុន ហើយ​បន្ទាប់​មក​យើង​អាច​ពិនិត្យ​មើល​ឲ្យ​បាន​ដិត​ដល់​អំពី​បញ្ហា​ដែល​មាន​នៅ​ក្នុង​ដៃ។

សរុបមកនេះ មានការពិចារណាអំពីក្រមសីលធម៌ AI និងច្បាប់ AI ។

សូម​ដឹង​ថា​មាន​កិច្ច​ខិត​ខំ​ប្រឹង​ប្រែង​ជា​បន្ត​ដើម្បី​ដាក់​បញ្ចូល​គោលការណ៍ Ethical AI ក្នុង​ការ​អភិវឌ្ឍ និង​ការ​ដាក់​បញ្ចូល​កម្មវិធី AI។ ការកើនឡើងនៃការព្រួយបារម្ភ និងខណៈពេលដែលអ្នកក្រមសីលធម៌ AI កំពុងព្យាយាមធានាថា កិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងដើម្បីបង្កើត និងអនុម័ត AI គិតគូរពីទិដ្ឋភាពនៃការធ្វើ អាយអេសដើម្បីភាពល្អ និងការបដិសេធ អាយអេសសម្រាប់អាក្រក់. ដូចគ្នានេះដែរ មានច្បាប់ AI ថ្មីដែលត្រូវបានស្នើឡើង ដែលកំពុងត្រូវបានរុំព័ទ្ធជាដំណោះស្រាយដ៏មានសក្ដានុពល ដើម្បីរក្សាការខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងរបស់ AI មិនឱ្យប៉ះពាល់ដល់សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស និងផ្សេងៗទៀត។ សម្រាប់ការគ្របដណ្តប់ដែលកំពុងបន្ត និងទូលំទូលាយនៃក្រមសីលធម៌ AI និងច្បាប់ AI សូមមើល តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ និង តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ, គ្រាន់តែឈ្មោះមួយចំនួន។

ការអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ និងការផ្សព្វផ្សាយនៃសិក្ខាបទ AI ប្រកបដោយសីលធម៌កំពុងត្រូវបានបន្តដើម្បីសង្ឃឹមថានឹងការពារសង្គមពីការធ្លាក់ចូលទៅក្នុងអន្ទាក់ដែលជំរុញដោយ AI ជាច្រើន។ សម្រាប់ការគ្របដណ្តប់របស់ខ្ញុំអំពីគោលការណ៍សីលធម៌ AI របស់អង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ ដែលត្រូវបានរៀបចំ និងគាំទ្រដោយប្រទេសជិត 200 តាមរយៈកិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងរបស់អង្គការយូណេស្កូ សូមមើល តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ. ស្រដៀងគ្នានេះដែរ ច្បាប់ AI ថ្មីកំពុងត្រូវបានរុករកដើម្បីព្យាយាម និងរក្សា AI ឱ្យនៅដដែល។ ការទទួលយកចុងក្រោយបំផុតមួយមានសំណុំនៃសំណើ វិក័យប័ត្រនៃសិទ្ធិ AI ដែលសេតវិមានអាមេរិកបានចេញផ្សាយនាពេលថ្មីៗនេះដើម្បីកំណត់អត្តសញ្ញាណសិទ្ធិមនុស្សនៅក្នុងយុគសម័យនៃ AI សូមមើល តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ. វាត្រូវការភូមិមួយដើម្បីរក្សាអ្នកអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ AI និងអ្នកអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ AI នៅលើផ្លូវត្រឹមត្រូវ និងរារាំងកិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងដែលមានគោលបំណង ឬដោយចៃដន្យ ដែលអាចបំផ្លាញសង្គម។

ខ្ញុំនឹងធ្វើការបកស្រាយអំពីក្រមសីលធម៌ AI និងច្បាប់ AI ដែលទាក់ទងនឹងការពិចារណាទៅក្នុងកិច្ចពិភាក្សានេះ។

មូលដ្ឋានគ្រឹះនៃ AI ជំនាន់

ឧទាហរណ៍ដែលគេស្គាល់យ៉ាងទូលំទូលាយបំផុតនៃ AI បង្កើតត្រូវបានតំណាងដោយកម្មវិធី AI ដែលមានឈ្មោះថា ChatGPT ។ ChatGPT បានផ្ទុះឡើងជាសាធារណៈនៅក្នុងខែវិច្ឆិកា នៅពេលដែលវាត្រូវបានចេញផ្សាយដោយក្រុមហ៊ុនស្រាវជ្រាវ AI OpenAI ។ មិនធ្លាប់មានចាប់តាំងពី ChatGPT ទទួលបានចំណងជើងធំហួសហេតុ ហើយហួសពីកិត្តិនាមដែលបានបែងចែករបស់ខ្លួនចំនួនដប់ប្រាំនាទី។

ខ្ញុំគិតថាអ្នកប្រហែលជាធ្លាប់លឺអំពី ChatGPT ឬប្រហែលជាស្គាល់នរណាម្នាក់ដែលបានប្រើវា។

ChatGPT ត្រូវ​បាន​គេ​ចាត់​ទុក​ថា​ជា​កម្មវិធី AI ជំនាន់​មុន​ព្រោះ​វា​ត្រូវ​ចំណាយ​ពេល​ជា​ការ​បញ្ចូល​អត្ថបទ​ខ្លះ​ពី​អ្នក​ប្រើ​ហើយ​បន្ទាប់​មក បង្កើត ឬបង្កើតលទ្ធផលដែលមានអត្ថបទ។ AI គឺជាម៉ាស៊ីនបង្កើតអត្ថបទមួយទៅអត្ថបទ ទោះបីជាខ្ញុំពណ៌នា AI ថាជាម៉ាស៊ីនបង្កើតអត្ថបទទៅអត្ថបទក៏ដោយ ព្រោះថាវាកាន់តែងាយស្រួលបញ្ជាក់ពីអ្វីដែលវាត្រូវបានគេប្រើជាទូទៅ។ អ្នក​អាច​ប្រើ AI ជំនាន់​មុន​ដើម្បី​សរសេរ​ការ​តែង​និពន្ធ​វែងៗ ឬ​អ្នក​អាច​ទទួល​បាន​វា​ដើម្បី​ផ្តល់​យោបល់​ខ្លីៗ។ វាទាំងអស់នៅក្នុងការដេញថ្លៃរបស់អ្នក។

អ្វីដែលអ្នកត្រូវធ្វើគឺបញ្ចូលប្រអប់បញ្ចូល ហើយកម្មវិធី AI នឹងបង្កើតអត្ថបទមួយសម្រាប់អ្នកដែលព្យាយាមឆ្លើយតបទៅនឹងការជម្រុញរបស់អ្នក។ អត្ថបទ​ដែល​តែង​នឹង​ហាក់​ដូច​ជា​អត្ថបទ​ត្រូវ​បាន​សរសេរ​ដោយ​ដៃ​និង​ចិត្ត​របស់​មនុស្ស។ ប្រសិនបើអ្នកត្រូវបញ្ចូលប្រអប់បញ្ចូលដែលនិយាយថា "ប្រាប់ខ្ញុំអំពី Abraham Lincoln" AI ជំនាន់ថ្មីនឹងផ្តល់ឱ្យអ្នកនូវអត្ថបទអំពី Lincoln ។ មានរបៀបបង្កើត AI ផ្សេងទៀត ដូចជាអត្ថបទទៅសិល្បៈ និងអត្ថបទទៅវីដេអូ។ ខ្ញុំនឹងផ្តោតលើការបំរែបំរួលអត្ថបទទៅអត្ថបទ។

គំនិតដំបូងរបស់អ្នកប្រហែលជាថាសមត្ថភាពបង្កើតនេះហាក់ដូចជាមិនមែនជារឿងធំបែបនេះទេ ទាក់ទងនឹងការផលិតអត្ថបទ។ អ្នកអាចធ្វើការស្វែងរកតាមអ៊ិនធរណេតបានយ៉ាងងាយស្រួល ហើយស្វែងរកអត្ថបទជាច្រើនអំពីប្រធានាធិបតី Lincoln យ៉ាងងាយស្រួល។ ចំនុចសំខាន់នៅក្នុងករណីនៃ AI ជំនាន់នេះគឺថាអត្ថបទដែលបានបង្កើតគឺមានលក្ខណៈប្លែកពីគេ ហើយផ្តល់នូវសមាសភាពដើមជាជាង copycat ។ ប្រសិនបើអ្នកព្យាយាមស្វែងរកអត្ថបទដែលផលិតដោយ AI តាមអ៊ីនធឺណិតនៅកន្លែងណាមួយ អ្នកទំនងជាមិនអាចរកឃើញវាបានទេ។

Generative AI ត្រូវបានបណ្តុះបណ្តាលជាមុន និងប្រើប្រាស់រូបមន្តគណិតវិទ្យា និងការគណនាដ៏ស្មុគស្មាញមួយដែលត្រូវបានបង្កើតឡើងដោយការពិនិត្យមើលគំរូនៅក្នុងពាក្យ និងរឿងដែលបានសរសេរនៅលើបណ្តាញ។ ជាលទ្ធផលនៃការពិនិត្យមើលអត្ថបទដែលបានសរសេររាប់ពាន់លាន AI អាចបញ្ចេញអត្ថបទ និងរឿងថ្មីៗ ដែលជាការខុសឆ្គងនៃអ្វីដែលបានរកឃើញ។ ដោយការបន្ថែមមុខងារប្រូបាប៊ីលីតេផ្សេងៗ អត្ថបទលទ្ធផលគឺមានលក្ខណៈប្លែកពីគេក្នុងការប្រៀបធៀបទៅនឹងអ្វីដែលបានប្រើនៅក្នុងឈុតបណ្តុះបណ្តាល។

មានការព្រួយបារម្ភជាច្រើនអំពី AI ជំនាន់។

គុណវិបត្តិដ៏សំខាន់មួយគឺថា អត្ថបទដែលផលិតដោយកម្មវិធី AI ដែលមានមូលដ្ឋានលើជំនាន់អាចមានភាពមិនពិតជាច្រើនដែលបានបង្កប់ រួមទាំងការពិតដែលមិនពិតដែលបង្ហាញឱ្យឃើញ ការពិតដែលត្រូវបានបង្ហាញឱ្យយល់ខុស និងការពិតជាក់ស្តែងដែលត្រូវបានប្រឌិតទាំងស្រុង។ ទិដ្ឋភាព​ប្រឌិត​ទាំងនោះ​ត្រូវ​បាន​គេ​សំដៅ​ជា​ញឹកញាប់​ថា​ជា​ទម្រង់​នៃ​ AI ភាពច្របូកច្របល់ជាឃ្លាដែលខ្ញុំមិនពេញចិត្ត ប៉ុន្តែគួរឱ្យសោកស្ដាយ ហាក់ដូចជាកំពុងទទួលបានប្រជាប្រិយភាពយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ (សម្រាប់ការពន្យល់លម្អិតរបស់ខ្ញុំអំពីមូលហេតុដែលវាក្យសព្ទនេះអាក្រក់ និងមិនសមរម្យ សូមមើលការគ្របដណ្តប់របស់ខ្ញុំនៅ តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ).

ក្តីបារម្ភមួយទៀតគឺថាមនុស្សអាចទទួលយកបានយ៉ាងងាយស្រួលសម្រាប់អត្ថបទដែលផលិតដោយ AI ជំនាន់មុន ទោះបីជាមិនបាននិពន្ធអត្ថបទដោយខ្លួនឯងក៏ដោយ។ អ្នកប្រហែលជាធ្លាប់លឺថាគ្រូបង្រៀន និងសាលារៀនមានការព្រួយបារម្ភយ៉ាងខ្លាំងអំពីការលេចឡើងនៃកម្មវិធី AI ជំនាន់។ សិស្សអាចប្រើ AI ជំនាន់ដើម ដើម្បីសរសេរអត្ថបទដែលបានកំណត់របស់ពួកគេ។ ប្រសិនបើសិស្សម្នាក់អះអាងថា អត្ថបទមួយត្រូវបានសរសេរដោយដៃរបស់ពួកគេផ្ទាល់ នោះមានឱកាសតិចតួចដែលគ្រូអាចដឹងថាតើវាត្រូវបានក្លែងបន្លំដោយ AI ជំនាន់មុនឬអត់។ សម្រាប់ការវិភាគរបស់ខ្ញុំអំពីទម្រង់នៃការយល់ច្រឡំរបស់សិស្ស និងគ្រូនេះ សូមមើលការគ្របដណ្តប់របស់ខ្ញុំនៅ តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ និង តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ.

មាន​ការ​អះអាង​លើស​ពី​ zany មួយ​ចំនួន​នៅ​លើ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​សង្គម​អំពី AI បង្កើត ការ​អះអាង​ថា​កំណែ​ចុងក្រោយ​របស់ AI នេះ​គឺ​ជា​ការ​ពិត AI អារម្មណ៍ (អត់ទេ គេខុស!) អ្នកនៅក្នុងក្រមសីលធម៌ AI និងច្បាប់ AI មានការព្រួយបារម្ភយ៉ាងខ្លាំងអំពីនិន្នាការដែលកំពុងកើនឡើងនៃការទាមទារដែលលាតសន្ធឹង។ អ្នក​ប្រហែល​ជា​និយាយ​ដោយ​គួរសម​ថា​មនុស្ស​មួយ​ចំនួន​កំពុង​និយាយ​ហួសហេតុ​អំពី​អ្វី​ដែល AI សព្វថ្ងៃ​អាច​ធ្វើ​បាន។ ពួកគេសន្មត់ថា AI មានសមត្ថភាពដែលយើងមិនទាន់អាចសម្រេចបាន។ នោះ​ហើយ​ជាអកុសល។ អាក្រក់ជាងនេះទៅទៀត ពួកគេអាចអនុញ្ញាតឱ្យខ្លួន និងអ្នកដ៏ទៃធ្លាក់ក្នុងស្ថានភាពធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ ដោយសារតែការសន្មត់ថា AI នឹងមានភាពស្រើបស្រាល ឬដូចមនុស្សក្នុងការធ្វើសកម្មភាព។

កុំធ្វើនិយតកម្ម AI ។

ការធ្វើដូច្នេះនឹងធ្វើឱ្យអ្នកជាប់ក្នុងអន្ទាក់ការពឹងផ្អែកដ៏ស្អិតរមួតនៃការរំពឹងថា AI ដើម្បីធ្វើរឿងដែលវាមិនអាចអនុវត្តបាន។ ជាមួយនឹងអ្វីដែលត្រូវបានគេនិយាយនោះ AI ជំនាន់ចុងក្រោយបំផុតគឺគួរឱ្យចាប់អារម្មណ៍សម្រាប់អ្វីដែលវាអាចធ្វើបាន។ សូម​ដឹង​ថា​មាន​កម្រិត​សំខាន់​ដែល​អ្នក​គួរ​តែ​ចងចាំ​ជា​បន្តបន្ទាប់​នៅ​ពេល​ដែល​ប្រើ​កម្មវិធី AI ជំនាន់​ណា​មួយ។

ការព្រមានចុងក្រោយមួយសម្រាប់ពេលនេះ។

អ្វីដែលអ្នកឃើញ ឬអាននៅក្នុងការឆ្លើយតប AI ជំនាន់នោះ។ ហាក់ដូចជា ដើម្បីបង្ហាញការពិតសុទ្ធសាធ (កាលបរិច្ឆេទ ទីកន្លែង មនុស្ស។

បាទ/ចាស កាលបរិច្ឆេទអាចត្រូវបានផ្សំ ទីកន្លែងអាចត្រូវបានបង្កើតឡើង ហើយធាតុដែលយើងរំពឹងថានឹងលើសពីការប្រមាថគឺ ទាំងអស់ ប្រធានបទនៃការសង្ស័យ។ កុំជឿអ្វីដែលអ្នកបានអាន ហើយរក្សាភ្នែកដែលមានការសង្ស័យនៅពេលពិនិត្យមើលអត្ថបទ ឬលទ្ធផលនៃ AI ណាមួយ។ ប្រសិនបើកម្មវិធី AI ជំនាន់ថ្មីប្រាប់អ្នកថា Abraham Lincoln ហោះហើរជុំវិញប្រទេសក្នុងយន្តហោះឯកជនរបស់គាត់ អ្នកនឹងដឹងច្បាស់ថានេះគឺជាជំងឺគ្រុនចាញ់។ ជាអកុសល មនុស្សមួយចំនួនប្រហែលជាមិនបានដឹងថា យន្តហោះចម្បាំងមិនមាននៅក្នុងសម័យរបស់គាត់ទេ ឬពួកគេអាចដឹង ប៉ុន្តែមិនបានកត់សំគាល់ថា អត្ថបទនេះធ្វើឱ្យមានការអះអាងខុសឆ្គង និងហួសចិត្ត។

A strong dose of healthy skepticism and a persistent mindset of disbelief will be your best asset when using generative AI. Also, be wary of potential privacy intrusions and the loss of data confidentiality, see my discussion at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ.

យើងត្រៀមខ្លួនរួចជាស្រេចដើម្បីឈានទៅដំណាក់កាលបន្ទាប់នៃការបំភ្លឺនេះ។

AI As The Greatest Story Ever Told

Let’s now do a deep dive into the distortions being told about AI.

I’ll focus on generative AI. That being said, pretty much any type of AI is subject to the same concerns about unfair or deceptive advertising. Keep this broader view in mind. I say this to those that are AI makers of any kind, ensuring that they all are apprised of these matters and not confined to just those crafting generative AI apps.

The same applies to all consumers. No matter what type of AI you might be considering buying or using, be wary of false or misleading claims about the AI.

Here are the main topics that I’d like to cover with you today:

• 1) The Who Is What Of Potential AI Falsehoods
• 2) Attempts To Use Escape Clauses For Avoiding AI Responsibility
• 3) FTC Provides Handy Words Of Caution On AI Advertising
• 4) FTC Also Serves Up Words Of Warning About AI Biases
• 5) The Actions You Need To Take About Your AI Advertising Ploys

ខ្ញុំនឹងលើកយកប្រធានបទសំខាន់ៗទាំងនេះ ហើយផ្តល់ការពិចារណាយ៉ាងស៊ីជម្រៅ ដែលយើងទាំងអស់គ្នាគួរគិតពិចារណា។ ប្រធានបទទាំងនេះនីមួយៗគឺជាផ្នែកសំខាន់នៃល្បែងផ្គុំរូបធំជាង។ អ្នកមិនអាចមើលតែមួយដុំបានទេ។ អ្នក​ក៏​មិន​អាច​មើល​បំណែក​ណា​មួយ​នៅ​ដាច់​ដោយ​ឡែក​ពី​បំណែក​ផ្សេង​ទៀត​ដែរ។

នេះគឺជា mosaic ដ៏ស្មុគស្មាញ ហើយល្បែងផ្គុំរូបទាំងមូលត្រូវតែត្រូវបានផ្តល់ការពិចារណាប្រកបដោយការចុះសម្រុងគ្នា។

The Who Is What Of Potential AI Falsehoods

An important point of clarification needs to be made about the various actors or stakeholders involved in these matters.

There are the AI makers that devise the core of a generative AI app, and then there are others that build on top of the generative AI to craft an app dependent upon the underlying generative AI. I have discussed how the use of API (application programming interfaces) allows you to write an app that leverages generative AI, see my coverage at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ. A prime example includes that Microsoft has added generative AI capabilities from OpenAI to their Bing search engine, as I have covered in-depth at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ.

The potential culprits of making misleading or false claims about AI can include:

• អ្នកស្រាវជ្រាវអេអាយ
• អ្នកអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ AI
• AI marketers
• AI makers that develop core AI such as generative AI
• Firms that use generative AI in their software offerings
• Firms that rely upon the use of generative AI in their products and services
• Firms that rely upon firms that are using generative AI in their products or services
• ល

You might view this as a supply chain. Anyone involved in AI as it proceeds along the path or gauntlet of the AI being devised and fielded can readily provide deceptive or fraudulent claims about the AI.

Those that made the generative AI might be straight shooters and it turns out that those others that wrap the generative AI into their products or services are the ones that turn devilish and make unfounded claims. That’s one possibility.

Another possibility is that the makers of AI are the ones that make the false claims. The others that then include the generative AI in their wares are likely to repeat those claims. At some point, a legal quagmire might result. A legal fracas might arise first aiming at the firm that repeated the claims, of which they in turn would seemingly point legal fingers at the AI maker that started the claim avalanche. The dominos begin to fall.

The point is that firms thinking that they can rely on the false claims of others are bound to suffer a rude awakening that they aren’t necessarily going to go scot-free because of such reliance. They too will undoubtedly have their feet held to the fire.

When push comes to shove, everyone gets bogged down into a muddy ugly legal fight.

Attempts To Use Escape Clauses For Avoiding AI Responsibility

I mentioned earlier that Section 5 of the FTC Act provides legal language about unlawful advertising practices. There are various legal loopholes that any astute lawyer would potentially use to the advantage of their client, presumably rightfully so if the client in fact sought to overturn or deflect what they considered to be a false accusation.

Consider for example this Section 5 clause:

• “The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination” (source: Section 5 of the FTC Act).

Some have interpreted that clause to suggest that if say a firm was advertising their AI and doing so in some otherwise seemingly egregious manner, the question arises as to whether the advertising was perhaps able to escape purgatory as long as the ads: (a) failed to cause “substantial injury to consumers”, (b) and of such was “avoidable by consumers themselves”, and (c) was “not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition”.

Imagine this use case. A firm decides to claim that their generative AI can aid your mental health. Turns out that the firm has crafted an app that incorporates the generative AI of a popular AI maker. The resultant app is touted as being able to “Help you achieve peace of mind by AI that interacts with you and soothes your anguished soul.”

As a side note, I have discussed the dangers of generative AI being used as a mental health advisor, see my analysis at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ និង តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ.

Back to the tale. Suppose that a consumer subscribes to the generative AI that allegedly can aid their mental health. The consumer says that they relied upon the ads by the firm that proffers the AI app. But after having used the AI, the consumer believes that they are mentally no better off than they were beforehand. To them, the AI app is using deceptive and false advertising.

I won’t delve into the legal intricacies and will simply use this as a handy foil (consult your attorney for appropriate legal advice). First, did the consumer suffer “substantial injury” as a result of using the AI app? One argument is that they did not suffer a “substantive” injury and merely only seemingly did not gain what they thought they would gain (a counterargument is that this constitutes a form of “substantive injury” and so on). Second, could the consumer have reasonably avoided any such injury if an injury did arise? The presumed defense is somewhat that the consumer was not somehow compelled to use the AI app and instead voluntarily choose to do so, plus they may have improperly used the AI app and therefore undermined the anticipated benefits, etc. Third, did the AI app possibly have substantial enough value or benefit to consumers that the claim made by this consumer is outweighed in the totality therein?

You can expect that many of the AI makers and those that augment their products and services with AI are going to be asserting that whatever their AI or AI-infused offerings do, they are providing on the balance a net benefit to society by incorporating the AI. The logic is that if the product or service otherwise is of benefit to consumers, the addition of AI boosts or bolsters those benefits. Ergo, even if there are some potential downsides, the upsides overwhelm the downsides (assuming that the downsides are not unconscionable).

I trust that you can see why lawyers are abundantly needed by those making or making use of AI.

FTC Provides Handy Words Of Caution On AI Advertising

Returning to the February 27, 2023 blog post by the FTC, there are some quite handy suggestions made about averting the out-of-bounds AI advertising claims conundrum.

Here are some key points or questions raised in the blog posting:

• “Are you exaggerating what your AI product can do?”
• “Are you promising that your AI product does something better than a non-AI product?”
• “Are you aware of the risks?”
• “Does the product actually use AI at all?”

Let’s briefly unpack a few of those pointed questions.

Consider the second bulleted point about AI products versus a considered comparable non-AI product. It is tantalizingly alluring to advertise that your AI-augmented product is tons better than whatever non-AI comparable product exists. You can do all manner of wild hand waving all day long by simply extolling that since AI is being included in your product it must be better. Namely, anything comparable that fails to use AI is obviously and inherently inferior.

This brings up the famous legendary slogan “Where’s the beef?”

The emphasis is that if you don’t have something tangible and substantive to back up the claim, you are on rather squishy and legally endangering ground. You are on quicksand. If called upon, you will need to showcase some form of sufficient or adequate proof that the AI-added product is indeed better than the non-AI product, assuming that you are making such a claim. This proof ought to not be a scrambled affair after-the-fact. You would wiser and safer to have this in hand beforehand, prior to making those advertising claims.

In theory, you should be able to provide some reasonable semblance of evidence to support such a claim. You could for example have done a survey or testing that involves those that use your AI-added product in comparison to those that use a non-AI comparable product. This is a small price to pay for potentially coping with a looming penalty down the road.

One other caveat is that don’t do the wink-wink kind of wimpy efforts to try and support your advertising claims about AI. The odds are that if you proffer a study that you did of the AI users versus the non-AI users, it will be closely inspected by other experts brought to bear. They might note for example that you perhaps put your thumb on the scale by how you selected those that were surveyed or tested. Or maybe you want so far as to pay the AI-using users to get them to tout how great your product is. All manner of trickery is possible. I doubt you want to get in បញ្ហាទ្វេរដង when those sneaky contrivances are discovered.

Shifting to one of the other bulleted points, consider the fourth bullet that asks whether AI is being used at all in a particular circumstance.

The quick-and-dirty approach these days consists of opportunists opting to label any kind of software as containing or consisting of AI. Might as well get on the AI bandwagon, some say. They are somewhat able to get away with this because the definition of AI is generally nebulous and ranges widely, see my coverage in ច្បាប់ Bloomberg on the vexing legal question of what is AI at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ.

The confusion over what AI is will potentially provide some protective cover, but it is not impenetrable.

Here’s what the FTC blog mentions:

• “In an investigation, FTC technologists and others can look under the hood and analyze other materials to see if what’s inside matches up with your claims.”

In that sense, whether or not you are using “AI” as to strictly adhering to an accepted definitional choice of AI, you will nonetheless be held to the claims made about whatever the software was proclaimed to be able to do.

I appreciated this added comment that followed the above point in the FTC blog:

• “Before labeling your product as AI-powered, note also that merely using an AI tool in the development process is not the same as a product having AI in it.”

That is a subtle point that many would not have perhaps otherwise considered. Here’s what it suggests. Sometimes you might make use of an AI-augmented piece of software when developing an application. The actual targeted app will not contain AI. You are simply using AI to help you craft the AI app.

For example, you can use ChatGPT to generate programming code for you. The code that is produced won’t necessarily have any AI components in it. Your app won’t be reasonably eligible to claim that it contains AI per se (unless, of course, you opt to include some form of AI techniques or tech into it). You could possibly say that you used AI to aid in writing the program. Even this needs to be said mindfully and cautiously.

FTC Also Serves Up Words Of Warning About AI Biases

The FTC blog that I mentioned herein on the topic of AI biases provides some helpful warnings that I believe are quite worthwhile to keep in mind (I’ll list them in a moment).

When it comes to generative AI, there are four major concerns about the pitfalls of today’s capabilities:

• កំហុស
• ភាពមិនពិត
• ការយល់ច្រលំ AI
• ភាពលំអៀង។

Let’s take a brief look at the AI biases concerns.

Here is my extensive list of biasing avenues that need to be fully explored for any and all generative AI implementations (discussed closely at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ):

• ភាពលំអៀងនៅក្នុងទិន្នន័យប្រភពពីអ៊ីនធឺណិតដែលត្រូវបានប្រើសម្រាប់ការបណ្តុះបណ្តាលទិន្នន័យនៃ AI ជំនាន់
• ភាពលំអៀងនៅក្នុងក្បួនដោះស្រាយ AI ជំនាន់ដែលប្រើដើម្បីផ្គូផ្គងលំនាំលើទិន្នន័យប្រភព
• ភាពលំអៀងនៅក្នុងការរចនា AI ទាំងមូលនៃ AI ជំនាន់ថ្មី និងហេដ្ឋារចនាសម្ព័ន្ធរបស់វា។
• ភាពលំអៀងរបស់អ្នកអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ AI ទាំងដោយប្រយោល ឬយ៉ាងច្បាស់លាស់ក្នុងការបង្កើត AI ជំនាន់
• ភាពលំអៀងរបស់អ្នកសាកល្បង AI ទាំងដោយប្រយោល ឬច្បាស់លាស់ក្នុងការសាកល្បង AI ជំនាន់
• ភាពលំអៀងនៃ RLHF (ការពង្រឹងការរៀនសូត្រដោយមតិកែលម្អរបស់មនុស្ស) ទាំងដោយប្រយោល ឬច្បាស់លាស់ដោយអ្នកត្រួតពិនិត្យដែលត្រូវបានចាត់តាំងដោយមនុស្សផ្តល់ការណែនាំបណ្តុះបណ្តាលដល់ AI ជំនាន់។
• ភាពលំអៀងនៃការសម្របសម្រួលផ្នែក AI សម្រាប់ការប្រើប្រាស់ប្រតិបត្តិការនៃ AI ជំនាន់
• ភាពលំអៀងនៅក្នុងការដំឡើង ឬការណែនាំលំនាំដើមដែលបានបង្កើតឡើងសម្រាប់ AI ជំនាន់ថ្មីនៅក្នុងការប្រើប្រាស់ប្រចាំថ្ងៃរបស់វា។
• លំអៀងដោយចេតនា ឬដោយអចេតនាក្នុងប្រអប់បញ្ចូលដែលបញ្ចូលដោយអ្នកប្រើប្រាស់ AI ជំនាន់
• ភាពលំអៀងនៃលក្ខខណ្ឌជាប្រព័ន្ធធៀបនឹងការលេចចេញជាលក្ខណៈ ad hoc ដែលជាផ្នែកមួយនៃការបង្កើតលទ្ធផលប្រូបាប៊ីលីតេចៃដន្យដោយ AI ជំនាន់
• ភាពលំអៀងដែលកើតឡើងជាលទ្ធផលនៃការកែតម្រូវក្នុងពេលហោះហើរ ឬក្នុងពេលជាក់ស្តែង ឬការបណ្តុះបណ្តាលទិន្នន័យកើតឡើង ខណៈពេលដែល AI ជំនាន់ថ្មីស្ថិតនៅក្រោមការប្រើប្រាស់សកម្ម
• ភាពលំអៀងត្រូវបានណែនាំ ឬពង្រីកកំឡុងពេលថែទាំ AI ឬការថែរក្សាកម្មវិធី AI ជំនាន់ថ្មី និងការអ៊ិនកូដដែលត្រូវគ្នានឹងលំនាំរបស់វា។
• ផ្សេងទៀត

As you can see, there are lots of ways in which undue biases can creep into the development and fielding of AI. This is not a one-and-done kind of concern. I liken this to a whack-a-mole situation. You need to be diligently and at all times attempting to discover and expunge or mitigate the AI biases in your AI apps.

Consider these judicious points made in the FTC blog of April 19, 2021 (these points do all still apply, regardless of their being អាយុ in terms of AI advancement timescales):

• “Start with the right foundation”
• “Watch out for discriminatory outcomes”
• “Embrace transparency and independence”
• “Don’t exaggerate what your algorithm can do or whether it can deliver fair or unbiased results”
• “Tell the truth about how you use data”
• “Do more good than harm”
• “Hold yourself accountable – or be ready for the FTC to do it for you”

One of my favorites of the above points is the fourth one listed, which refers to the oft-used claim or myth that due to incorporating AI that a given app must be unbiased.

Here’s how that goes.

We all know that humans are biased. We somehow fall into the mental trap that machines and AI are able to be unbiased. Thus, if we are in a situation whereby we can choose between using a human versus AI when seeking some form of service, we might be tempted to use the AI. The hope is that AI will not be biased.

This hope or assumption can be reinforced if the maker or fielder of the AI proclaims that their AI is indubitably and inarguably unbiased. That is the comforting icing on the cake. We already are ready to be led down that primrose path. The advertising cinches the deal.

The problem is that there is no particular assurance that the AI is unbiased. The AI maker or AI fielder might be lying about the AI biases. If that seems overly nefarious, let’s consider that the AI maker or AI fielder might not know whether or not their AI has biases, but they decide anyway to make such a claim. To them, this seems like a reasonable and expected claim.

The FTC blog indicated this revealing example: “For example, let’s say an AI developer tells clients that its product will provide ‘100% unbiased hiring decisions,’ but the algorithm was built with data that lacked racial or gender diversity. The result may be deception, discrimination– and an FTC law enforcement action” (ibid).

The Actions You Need To Take About Your AI Advertising Ploys

Companies will sometimes get themselves into potential hot water because one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing.

In many companies, once an AI app is ready for being released, the marketing team will be given scant information about what the AI app does. The classic line is that the AI details are just over their heads and they aren’t techie savvy enough to understand it. Into this gap comes the potential for outlandish AI advertising. The marketers do what they can, based on whatever morsels or tidbits are shared with them.

I am not saying that the marketing side was hoodwinked. Only that there is often a gap between the AI development side of the house and the marketing side. Of course, there are occasions when the marketing team is essentially hoodwinked. The AI developers might brag about proclaimed super-human AI capabilities, for which the marketers have presumably no meaningful way to refute or express caution. We can consider other calamitous permutations. It could be that the AI developers were upfront about the limitations of the AI, but the marketing side opted to add some juice by overstating what the AI can do. You know how it is, those AI techies just don’t understand what it takes to sell something.

Somebody has to be a referee and make sure that the two somewhat disparate departments have a proper meeting of the minds. The conceived advertising will need to be based on foundations that the AI developers ought to be able to provide evidence or proof of. Furthermore, if the AI developers are imbued with wishful thinking and already drinking the AI Kool-Aid, this needs to be identified so that the marketing team doesn’t get blindsided by overly optimistic and groundless notions.

In some firms, the role of a Chief AI Officer has been floated as a possible connection to make sure that the executive team at the highest levels is considering how AI can be used within the firm and as part of the company’s products and services. This role also would hopefully serve to bring together the AI side of the house and the marketing side of the house, rubbing elbows with the head of marketing or Chief Marketing Officer (CMO). See my discussion about this emerging role, at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ.

Another very important role needs to be included in these matters.

The legal side of the house is equally crucial. A Chief Legal Officer (CLO) or head counsel or outside counsel ought to be involved in the AI facets throughout the development, fielding, and marketing of the AI. Sadly, the legal team is often the last to know about such AI efforts. A firm that is served with a legal notice as a result of a lawsuit or federal agency investigation will suddenly realize that maybe the legal folks should be involved in their AI deployments.

A smarter approach is to include the legal team before the horse is out of the barn. Long before the horse is out of the barn. Way, way earlier. For my coverage on AI and legal practices, see តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ និង តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ, ឧទាហរណ៍។

A recent online posting entitled “Risks Of Overselling Your AI: The FTC Is Watching” by the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton (a globally recognized international law firm, headquartered in New York City), written by Avi Gesser, Erez Liebermann, Jim Pastore, Anna R. Gressel, Melissa Muse, Paul D. Rubin, Christopher S. Ford, Mengyi Xu, and with a posted date of March 6, 2023, provides a notably insightful indication of actions that firms should be undertaking about their AI efforts.

Here are some selected excerpts from the blog posting (the full posting is at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ):

• “ ១ ។ AI Definition. Consider creating an internal definition of what can be appropriately characterized as AI, to avoid allegations that the Company is falsely claiming that a product or service utilizes artificial intelligence, when it merely uses an algorithm or simple non-AI model.”
• “ ១ ។ សារពើភ័ណ្ឌ. Consider creating an inventory of public statements about the company’s AI products and services.”
• “ ១ ។ ការអប់រំ: Educate your marketing compliance teams on the FTC guidance and on the issues with the definition of AI.”
• “ ១ ។ ពិនិត្យឡើងវិញ: Consider having a process for reviewing all current and proposed public statements about the company’s AI products and services to ensure that they are accurate, can be substantiated, and do not exaggerate or overpromise.”
• “ ១ ។ Vendor Claims: For AI systems that are provided to the company by a vendor, be careful not to merely repeat vendor claims about the AI system without ensuring their accuracy.”
• “ ១ ។ ការវាយតម្លៃហានិភ័យ: For high-risk AI applications, companies should consider conducting impact assessments to determine foreseeable risks and how best to mitigate those risks, and then consider disclosing those risks in external statements about the AI applications.”

Having been a top executive and global CIO/CTO, I know how important the legal team is to the development and fielding of internal and externally facing AI systems, including when licensing or acquiring third-party software packages. Especially so with AI efforts. The legal team needs to be embedded or at least considered a close and endearing ally of the tech team. There is a plethora of legal landmines related to any and all tech and markedly so for AI that a firm decides to build or adopt.

AI is nowadays at the top of the list of potential legal landmines.

The dovetailing of the AI techies with the marketing gurus and with the legal barristers is the best chance you have of doing things right. Get all three together, continuously and not belatedly or one-time, so they can figure out a marketing and advertising strategy and deployment that garners the benefits of AI implementation. The aim is to minimize the specter of the long arm of the law and costly and reputationally damaging lawsuits, while also maximizing the suitably fair and balanced acclaim that AI substantively provides.

The Goldilocks principle applies to AI. You want to tout that the AI can do great things, assuming that it can and does, demonstrably backed up by well-devised evidence and proof. You don’t want to inadvertently shy away from whatever the AI adds as value. This undercuts the AI additive properties. And, at the other extreme, you certainly do not want to make zany boastful ads that go off the rails and make claims that are nefarious and open to legal entanglements.

The soup has to be just at the right temperature. Achieving this requires ably-minded and AI-savvy chefs from the tech team, the marketing team, and the legal team.

In a recent posting by the law firm Arnold & Porter (a well-known multinational law firm with headquarters in Washington, D.C.), Isaac E. Chao and Peter J. Schildkraut wrote a piece entitled “FTC Warns: All You Need To Know About AI You Learned In Kindergarten” (posted date of March 7, 2023, available at តំណភ្ជាប់នៅទីនេះ), and made this crucial cautionary emphasis about the legal liabilities associated with AI use:

• “In a nutshell, don’t be so taken with the magic of AI that you forget the basics. Deceptive advertising exposes a company to liability under federal and state consumer protection laws, many of which allow for private rights of action in addition to government enforcement. Misled customers—especially B2B ones—might also seek damages under various contractual and tort theories. And public companies have to worry about SEC or shareholder assertions that the unsupported claims were material.”

Realize that even if your AI is not aimed at consumers, you aren’t axiomatically off-the-hook as to potential legal exposures. Customers that are businesses can decide too that your AI claims falsely or perhaps fraudulently misled them. All manner of legal peril can arise.

សន្និដ្ឋាន

A lot of people are waiting to see what AI advertising-related debacle rises from the existing and growing AI frenzy. Some believe that we need a Volkswagen-caliber exemplar or a L’Oréal-stature archetype to make everyone realize that the cases of outrageously unfounded claims about AI are not going to be tolerated.

Until a big enough legal kerfuffle regarding an AI advertising out-of-bounds gets widespread attention on social media and in the everyday news, the worry is that the AI boasting bonanza is going to persist. The marketing of AI is going to keep on climbing up the ladder of outlandishness. Higher and higher this goes. Each next AI is going to have to do a one-upmanship of the ones before it.

My advice is that you probably do not want to be the archetype and land in the history books for having gotten caught with your hand in the AI embellishment cookie jar. Not a good look. Costly. Possibly could ruin the business and associated careers.

Will you get caught?

I urge that if you are mindful of what you do, getting caught won’t be a nightmarish concern since you will have done the proper due diligence and can sleep peacefully with your head nestled on your pillow.

For those of you that aren’t willing to follow that advice, I’ll leave the last word for this mild forewarning remark in the FTC blog of February 27, 2023: “Whatever it can or can’t do, AI is important, and so are the claims you make about it. You don’t need a machine to predict what the FTC might do when those claims are unsupported.”

Well, I suppose one could use AI to aid you in steering clear of unlawful AI advertising, but that’s a narrative for another day. Just keep in mind to be thoughtful and truthful about your AI. That and ensure that you’ve got the best legal beagles stridently providing their devout legal wisdom on these matters.